For many reasons and in many senses, the translation process is a challenging and laborious act. Independent and mostly self-reliant, translators constantly have to face many choices during projects, navigating among a range of possible translation equivalents in an attempt to reach the perfect end product in spite of the utter subjectiveness of it all. It is described by the writer Alexander Künzli as an uncertain process, and this array of diverse possibilities concerning terminology, syntax, or grammar, represents a constant hindrance which considerably slows down a translator’s working process.
It is these moments of qualms that make translators grateful for the fresh look that editors (should) offer before the finalization of the project. That last step of the translation process assures the translator that no typos, grammatical mistake, or omission will slither its way into the clean file delivered to the client. In a way, editors are the safety nets of agencies; they steer them clear from any blunder that could sully their relationship with clients. This undirect collaboration between translators and editors is what always guarantees in the end a flawless final product where all typos, grammatical errors and style incoherence have been cleared properly.
However, if safety nets are indispensable to a smooth process, they are also often at risk of being dismissed as a superfluous step.
From being perceived as some simple proofreading to being judged ineffective, the role of an editor has been through its own fair share of discourse already, and the same idea always seems to come out of it: the necessity of revision is perpetually put into question. Whether it is because some think an editor’s brief overlaps with the proofreading a translator already does on their own, or because it is seen as a costly solution that isn’t always foolproof (hereby referring to under-revisions, over-revisions, and hyper-revisions), or even because the quality of translations is a subjective matter that cannot be objectively fixed by a second person, the value of editors always seemed to be disregarded.
In order not to be overlooked any further, being vocal about their brief and communicating on their work is fundamental for editors.
Opening up the conversation concerning rates
As opposed to translators, the work of editors isn’t easily quantifiable. Estimating rates represents a trickier step; not only are the rates for editing lower, but the editors also can’t guess beforehand how much time is going to be spent on it. Two translations with the exact same number of words can represent a considerably different amount of effort in editing. If this issue isn’t taken into account, an editor risks being paid a very low amount for a translation they had to put a lot of effort into editing.
With that in mind, it’s necessary for an editor to always take a proper look at the content of a project before accepting it. This cautious step will allow the editor to reach out to the agency after evaluating how much time will be spent revising the translation in order to discuss rates. Prices can be a thorny subject to tackle, which is why good communication skills quickly come into handy for editors. Being able to explain distinctly the expertise that the translation requires and the effort that needs to be put into it for a spotless end product is a good reminder that editing isn’t a superfluous step but instead a reliable safety net for agencies.
Collaborating as an adviser
Once the rates established, the correspondence still doesn’t end.
The fact that the necessity for editing is often being put into question by researchers is tightly intertwined with communication, or rather lack of. Once translators submit their files, it’s frequently transferred to the editor and then sent to the client without them hearing anything about the changes that have been made in the final product. It’s a one-sided collaboration that sure helps building a greater end product, but ultimately falls short as it fails to make the translator aware of what was fixed in their translation and of how beneficial the editing step was in the whole process.
A way to end this one-sided collaboration is to cease being a silent helper by reaching out and giving feedback to the translator. This feedback will turn this collaboration into a reciprocal one, a cooperation in which translators will get valuable criticism from editors instead of seeing them like simple red marks on their files. Through these exchanges, editors can reappropriate the role they were always intended to have – a role of adviser, and not silent corrector.
If you wish to get into contact with skilled editors, feel free to reach out to us now!