Sunday, November 14, 2010

Not as helpful as they might think

I'm reading Helene Tursten's The Glass Devil in translation from the Swedish. For some reason, either her translator or her American publisher felt the need to footnote the words kilometer, meter, centimeter, kilogram, degree, and krona, and provide conversion units.

Except for the money, I didn't need that. It would have been much more useful if they'd footnoted and converted other things. For instance - how expensive is "a relatively new black Skoda"? Is it a Chevy, a Datsun, a Honda, a Nissan, a Porsche, a Jag? That is, what does it tell me about the owner? And the money could have been handled better, too. Sure, it was helpful to learn that a krona is about a dime (or was when the book was written), but what's the purchasing power? When I was in the UK last, a pound was about two bucks, but bought about as much as one. So is 8,000 krona like $800, or can you buy more (or less) with it?

Anybody can memorize the kilometer-mile and Fahrenheit-Celsius conversions. If you're going to offer us footnotes, you might consider what we can't know so easily.

Labels: , , ,

4 Comments:

At 6:00 AM, November 15, 2010 Anonymous Anonymous had this to say...

Strange that they felt the need to footnote metric units. I do appreciate it when translators of older Russian literature remind me how long a verst is (not that I ever do much with the information once I have it), but I would expect American readers to have learned enough about the metric system in school to be able to contend with such measurements as might come up in a Swedish novel.

I'm not sure that there is a straightforward way of translating a Škoda into American automotive terms, but that may just be because I don't know much about cars (in Sweden, the U.S., or anywhere else). But if they're footnoting kilograms, then they might as well have also told you that it's a Czech car that's relatively common and inexpensive in Western Europe.

 
At 3:14 PM, November 15, 2010 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

I agree with you. True, being told that someone is 189 cm tall doesn't bring an immediate image to my mind, but without much trouble I can make that "nearly 6 ft". The metric system is fairly familiar, I'd have thought.

 
At 8:14 PM, November 15, 2010 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

Barry just sent me an email saying:

I can't post this directly, 'cause it's blocked by China's firewall, so I'll send it by email. Maybe you can post it on my behalf. (Nice trip, but it'll be nice to be home on Friday, after three weeks away.)

<< True, being told that someone is 189 cm tall doesn't bring an immediate image to my mind, but without much trouble I can make that "nearly 6 ft". The metric system is fairly familiar, I'd have thought.
>>

Yes, except that it's "more than 6 ft," not "nearly" -- about 6' 2.5".
So maybe having the conversion there helps a little more than we think.

 
At 8:15 PM, November 15, 2010 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

And I respond to Barry by saying: Crap, I typed 189 when I meant 179.

Thanks!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->