japanese to english translator needed!

[Edward Fowler]

Several recent responses regarding the economics of translation 
impel me to further comment.  In a sense it is wrong to talk about 
the plight of translators in isolation.  For they are but one of 
many groups--typically working in anonimity or otherwise behind the 
scenes--who are systematically exploited by those on the lookout
for a healthy "return on investment."  Even in the best of times,
this exploitation persists, because it is structural, not 
circumstantial.  The era of tight budgets is not the cause of 
the problem; it merely aggravates it.

That is why certain groups of highly trained people predictably 
take the hit in leaner times; their skills have been systematically
undervalued even in the "good times."  They are often very dedicated.
A local example is the language instructors and teaching assistants
on this campus, who, like most translators, work on a temporary 
contractual basis. It is one thing, of course, to let personal 
motivation determine one's choice of work, even if it be for
less-than-adequate pay.  It is another matter entirely to be 
pressured (or conned) into doing poorly compensated work for the
sake of another's person's (or corporation's) profit, because no 
other choices appear to be available.  Whenever a choice is 
possible, utmost discretion should be exercised, it seems to me.  

I take the request by the Kurosawa biographer, by the way, to be 
somewhat different from the one by the would-be publisher of the 
Kitano book.  The biographer, naively, if without malice, failed to
factor in a translator, despite the crucial role (cultural, as well
as linguistic, as one person has mentioned) that the latter must
perform.  (Note:  one way for him to resolve the issue might be 
to offer a percentage, however small, of the royalties from the
completed book.)  The publisher, on the other hand, ought to know
better and needs to have her bluff called. It is time for translators, 
and others in similar occupations, to receive the respect--along with
the commensurate credit and compensation--they deserve.  This won't
happen without a struggle, and it probably won't happen without some
backlash, perhaps in the form of publishers' attempts to take their 
work "offshore," so to speak, in search of ever cheaper labor.  As 
difficult as it is to counter that pressure, there is strength in
numbers, especially if those numbers have a common purpose.  

Those considering anything more than the briefest of translation 
jobs should contact an organization like SWET (Society of Writers,
Editors, and Translators, based in Tokyo), both to acquaint
themselves with the going rates and to benefit from the experiences
of other translators.  The decision about whether to accept a job--
even if it _does_ pay a substandard wage--ought at the very least to
be made on the basis of a thorough knowledge of one's options.

Apropos the cinema, I suggest that people who supply their voices 
in movie dubbing are another such group who are doubtless exploited,
working as they do in virtually total anonimity.  (The situation may
actually be better in Japan than in the U.S.)  Needless to say, I'm
NOT talking about the "name" actors who lend their fame to the roles
they are playing.  (For a recent example, note how _Princess Mononoke_
is marketed in the U.S., with the dubbers' names featured prominently,
as if THEY were the stars, while the director's name can barely be
made out in the credits.)  Fellow List members can no doubt think of
other groups whose work is ignored or devalued all too often. 

Ted Fowler


On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 tim.iles at utoronto.ca wrote:

> Professor Fowler's comments raise an interesting point (their apparent
> vindictiveness aside): while skilled and reliable translators are worth
> more than their weight in gold, there is much, much material deserving of
> translation which is very unlikely to receive due attention in these days
> of tight university-press budgets, and an increasingly "consumer market"
> driven publishing industry. At what point can a worthwhile project be
> defended on those terms alone, without consideration of its potential for
> a healthy "return on investment"? While Kitano may be a "controversial"
> figure--albeit a popular one--there are many other film makers whose work
> and histories are being overlooked, because publishers cannot (or will
> not) justify the expense based on the size of the market available...
> Frankly, I think this situation is _insane_, but I'm at a loss as to what
> _I_, personally, can do to counter it...
> 
> Timothy Iles