Bad translations cannot be salvaged

This morning I found in my inbox a message from one of my regular agency clients in Germany. They asked me to edit a translation (an annual report) of close to 35,000 words (for Monday morning!), because their client had rejected the original translation as being complete rubbish.

When a translation has been well done, it is possible to proofread 35,000 words over the weekend, but not in this case. Since most of it, if not all, would have to be completely rewritten or retranslated, there would not have been enough time to complete the assignment for Monday morning. Besides, rotten translations cannot be salvaged. Only a complete retranslation from scratch will provide the necessary remedy.

The agency has shot itself in the foot, and demonstrated mismanagement of resources and short-sightedness on its part. Mismanagement because, as I told them, they should have contacted me for the original translation since annual reports, such as this one, are among my specializations. But instead of coming to me first, they must have picked some wannabe translator who didn't know at all what he or she was doing.

Short-sightedness because the client will never return to this agency for future work. What is more, the client may spread the word and tell other companies not to use this agency's services. To add insult to injury, the client may well decide in the end not to pay for the translation at all.

I had to turn down their request, given that it was an impossible task. Although no action on my part was required, since the agency had already found another sucker, er, proofreader to handle the project by the time I accessed my e-mails at the start of business (the agency had sent me the original request at three o'clock in the morning my time, completely ignoring the eight-hour time difference and adding "a quick reply would be appreciated").

Regardless, the translation, once edited, will not to be to the client's satisfaction; lousy translations put through the wringer again never are. Besides, any professional translator would decline such a job offer, because all such a futile attempt at salvaging a bad translation will do is harm the translator's own good name and reputation. In other words, thanks, but no thanks.

When a journalist hands in an article to his editor, the latter will invariably make some changes here and there. If the article is complete rubbish, the editor will throw it back in the journalist's face and demand a "complete rewrite" (followed, perhaps, by those magical words, "Or you're fired"). Editors know that there is only so much you can change to turn an article into good copy; if the "rubbish factor" exceeds a certain percentage, it's either a full rewrite or the end of the writer's career. How come, then, that translation agencies and their project managers still cling to the fallacy that a bad translation can be "repaired" through nothing more than editing, rather than a complete "rewrite", i.e., retranslation?

Comments

[Richard Benham]

Then there was the agent who asked me to fix up a dud translation, and, in response to my heavily discounted offer to retranslate from scratch, replied that she couldn’t possibly pay so much as it would exceed her budget! The only justification for the rather heavy commission taken out by agents is the commercial risk they expose themselves to, but this woman wanted to take the cost of her injudicious initial choice of translator out of my pay and still pocket her commission. Sorry, lady.

[Werner Patels]

Yep, I agree, that's a big no-no. If they make a lousy decision at the start of a project, they will have to shoulder the consequences as well.

[Emily]

I totally agree with Richard. They should ask themselves what is it that is not working in their project management system, and not what's wrong with the translator. The translator was, after all, selected by their own parameters. Evidently, some quite professional parameters.. Not.