Shocking art

 

[cubist fish*]

Most art in any form is commercially successful in its own time because it is line with current tastes. At the same time, some artists of all genres choose to take the road not taken and produce a creation whose raison d’être or, at minimum, its selling point is that it is shocking. Granted a few choose their form of expression due to a personal vision with minimal external influence. Yet, clearly, most such revolutionaries are quickly forgotten if even noticed. The interesting question is which of these pioneering works are actually appreciated by future generations.

Some artists turned their sails into wind and chose to challenge accepted taste. Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn are examples of deliberate breaking of accepted limits specifically on discussing sexuality. Almost a century earlier, Andrei Beli wrote a symbolist novel, Petersburg, in complete rejection of the classic Russan writers that preceded him, notably Tolstoy. In theatre, Victor Hugo produced Hernani knowing full well that the critics and public would find it overly extragenetic and absurd. Likewise, Ionesco in The Chairs wrote a tragic farce that went far beyond the capacity to appreciate of most theatre viewers of his day. In music, aside from the humoristic elements, P.D.Q Bach and Spike Jones shattered the serious intellectuality of classical music, albeit in rather different ways. Thus, every action does have a reaction even in art.

Admittedly, some artists created their own style mainly  because of their unique internal vision, not necessarily commercial interests. Clearly, James Joyce in Ulysses and Marcel Proust in In Search of Lost Time felt a need to express their reality whether or not anybody would appreciate it or even understand it. In theatre, Mother Courage and her children by Bertolt Brecht and Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco reflect the political view of their writers. Clearly, the first rappers sought self-expression, not riches. Thus, the seeds of some world-changing works came from the artists themselves.

Regardless of the motivation, most of these shocking works have lost their glean and are probably considered as impressive and appreciated as the collected works of Stalin (does anbyody still have a copy?. Which of these shining stars is still remarkable today is a matter of personal taste. Would you rather read On the Road by Jack Kerouac or Travels in Spain by Alexander Dumas? Would you rather see Sammuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot or Oscar Wilde’s Salome? Would you prefer a painting by Andy Warhol or Monet in your living room. At minimum, it can be said that at least these shocking artists are still known while most of their more popular peers have almost completely disappeared from the stage (or book store, if you will). Since fame is a fickle, as Oscar Wilde said, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

 

 

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Speaking your mind – how to make a proper oral presentation in spite of your fears

 

[shaking speaker*]

Among the fears shared by most people is the fear of public speaking. Many of the bravest and most confident people shake at the mere prospect of standing up in front of their peers and sharing their knowledge. Yet, many such individuals find themselves in a situation in which they must or should do exactly that, orate. As it is completely unrealistic to make the fear and/or nervousness disappear, I will present a method for preparing oral presentations that will  be “good enough” and allow the speaker to make a positive impression on others.

1.   Topic choice – The speaker must be familiar with the topic and find it, at minimum, moderately interesting. Non-professional speakers cannot successfully fake knowledge and interest , i.e., the audience quickly grasps that the speaker is not an expert and/or is not excited by the topic. Therefore, it is a strategic mistake to speak about matters regarding which you have insufficient knowledge and lack passion.

2.  Organization – It is the task of the speaker to organize the material. Listeners do not appreciate having to make sense of the material. Thus, in order to ensure completeness and structure, begin by “brainstorming” ideas, whether on paper or the computer, and then group them, putting them in proper order. As any student that has had to suffer from an ill-prepared lecturer knows, chaos creates a negative impression.

3.  Outline – After organizing the material,  the next step is to construct an outline of the content, limiting the text to phrases and avoiding sentences. The biggest bane of listeners is being read to. Not far behind is the placement of the script on the PowerPoint slide. By avoiding a script and applying relevant phrases as the backbone of the lecture, the speaker speaks to the audience instead of reading to it.

4.  Practice – Even experienced lecturers profit from rehearsal. The practice audience can be team members, family or even pets. Each repetition improves the fluency of the speech and smoothness of the transitions. The actual number of repetitions required to attain fluency varies from person to person and situation to situation. Remember that audiences recognize and appreciate a well-prepared lecturer.

5.  Familiarity – An additional advantage of sufficient rehearsal is that the speaker can overcome the inevitable initial nervousness and demonstrate expertise. Regardless of how shaky the person feels in the beginning, the mastery of the content created by the practice takes over and shines above any signs of nervousness. Listeners respect content confidence.

It is important for speakers to recognize that public speaking is an art, i.e., it is a skill that constantly develops. No speaker is completely satisfied with the result. Perfection and potential are not relevant concepts when evaluating any specific lecture. The only issues are whether the speaker succeeded in transmitting the content and how to improve the next time. The most amazing phenomenon is that, at a certain point, some people start enjoying being the star of the show and relish the interaction with the audience. Even those that don’t enjoy the experience can make a competent oral presentation if they prepare properly.

 

 

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Translators – Payment in hand

[bird in hand*]

 

Translation being an Internet-based service, I have experienced, for better or worse, a wide range of payment arrangements. They generally differ in terms of time, with these variances usually depending on the type of customer and payment infrastructure. I can say for certain that payment terms for translation services are not a “one size fits all” category with the major distinction being individual companies as compared to translation companies and other corporations, private and public. The range of conditions include:

Private customers:

Full prepayment – Generally demanded from first-time customers regarding which there is some doubt or used for customers in countries where that method is socially acceptable. I personally find it less comfortable as prepayment somehow puts extra pressure on me but that is a matter of personal approach.

Partial advance payment with the rest upon delivery: This option is ideal for larger projects, reducing the risk to the translator or editor, as well as a compromise in terms of showing how much trust there is in the ordering party. This arrangement is similar to how house renovation is handled: the payee makes an initial partial payment and waits to see the final result before complete payment, which should be made promptly after delivery.

Full payment immediately upon delivery: In my experience, this is the most common manner with individual customers. “Immediately” may involve a few days but not more. This method is very natural for customers as they are used to paying for products at stores upon receipt and the most agreeable for translators and other freelancers in terms of cash flow. It prevents the feeling of becoming an unwilling credit agency.

Monthly invoice: For private customers with regular work, such as law firms in my case, it is often more convenient for both the translator and payer to receive a monthly invoice, which is to be paid promptly.

Invoice plus 30 days: This is the least ideal method for private customers. Not only do payers tend to forget to pay, which then leads to more time investment due to the correspondence, but translators often forget that they are owed money and discover three months later that they still have not received payment. Freelancers should avoid this term of payment unless there is some compelling reason otherwise.

Translation agencies, corporations and public agencies

The playing field changes here. These large bodies have far more bargaining power than freelancers as well as less flexibility than private customers. Thus, in general, they set the terms, which translators can either accept or refuse.

Immediate handling of invoice: This is best of all possible worlds for freelancers. The receiving company is sufficiently streamlined to direct the invoice to the relevant department, which issues payment within one and no more than two weeks. Translators, bless such customers.

Invoice date plus 30 – This is much more common and still reasonable. In practice, the institution allows itself a full month to make the payment. It also guarantees that the translators will not have a long wait before receiving compensation for their work.

EOM (end of  the month): This method is also standard and requires all service providers to submit their invoices by a certain date, generally a few days before or after the last day of the month. The company then issues payments within 1-2 weeks. In practice, it means anywhere from 10-45 days from completion of work, depending on the actually date of completion. Freelancers have to keep records and pay attention to the last date of submission for a month. Otherwise, they can find themselves waiting an additional 30 days.

EOM plus 30: Unfortunately, this policy is quite common. It is identical to the previous one but with one critical difference: the company pays the invoice at the beginning of the month following the month of submission. Thus, the payment delay often reaches 45 days and more.

EOM plus 45 or 60: This is approaching the extreme end of the scale. Translators that work under such terms should take the delay into account and add a “credit” charge to the fee, albeit a hidden one, to compensate for the delay in payment. Accept at your own risk.

Invoice date plus 90: Contracts with public agencies and institutions may be rather large but often involve quite complex payment approval procedures, or at least so these bodies claim. It is not unusual to have such bodies take 90  days or more to approve and execute your payment. Translators and other service providers need to take that into account in terms of cash flow and rates. Clearly, these bodies set the terms. The freelancer can either accept or avoid them. Consider carefully.

In practice, I have worked with all these conditions, including the last one. There is no single “ideal” payment term. Each customer situation has its own elements. Clearly, the faster the payment, the better but, on the other hand, a customer in the hand is income even after 45 days. For translators, the time of payment can be as important as the actual amount.

 

* Picture credits help the blind full access the Internet.

Picture credit

Respect vs loyalty – on translators and editors

 

[guns at Gettysburg*]

An essential part of any successful translation is another pair of eyes. It is a standard part of the document QA process to have someone else, an editor, review the document as prepared by the translator. In some cases, notably in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, government regulations delineate the responsibility of each editor, ranging from fundamental check of the translation to identification of critical errors and formatting issues. In most other fields, the responsibility of editors is far more ambiguous. Editors can understand that it is their task to correct any translation and language errors but also can assume, as the agent of the paying party, that their mandate is to create the best possible translation, which generally involves also improving the style of the original translation. Depending on the approach, the physical and emotional result is quite different.

Many translation editors, often translators themselves, emphasize the checking aspect of their task. In other words, they compare the source and target document and amend the original translation if they find terminology or syntax issues that affect the reader understanding of the document. In most cases, such editors often think “I would have written this sentence differently but, as is, the content is clear and correct.” The resulting amended document is thus essentially similar to the original with minor changes (assuming that the translators did a reasonably professional job). For translators, viewing the tracked changes can be a bit annoying when they don’t agree but not an emotionally catastrophic event as the amended text shows that the translator expressed the essential elements of the original document in a reasonable way.

On the other extreme are those editors whose vision is solely to produce the best possible text as they see it. These are often in-house or monolingual (just considering the target text). The editing process approaches that of rewriting, with each sentence subject to total revision if the editor find that path appropriate. The translator’s writing style and terminology choices are not relevant factors. The resulting text resembles Picket’s troops after the Battle of Gettysburg, with the red (or other color) of tracked changes dominating the basic black of the original. For the translator receiving the marked up revised version, it is painful even to start to analyze the changes, especially when so many are “preferential”. It is generally but not always correct to say that the new version is better in most ways but that does not necessarily mean that the original translation was poor. For the most part, as a rule, any revision, especially by another person, will improve even the best written document.

Translators have almost no control on which editor their work will fall or the actual instructions to that editor. In the case of a gatekeeper editor that makes only essential changes, all the translators needs to do is to take a deep breath and patiently and objectively (as much as humanly possible) either accept or reject the changes, providing explanations in the latter case. This approach shows professionalism and adds to the translator’s prestige. If we wish to be honest, it is always possible to improve any text. Translators face a much more difficult task when receiving a total rewrite. It is important to avoid the two extremes, i.e., complete loss of self-confidence and indisciminate dismissal of the corrections of the editors. The truth is somewhere in between. Beyond the actual corrections, it is important but admittedly difficult to admit that the purpose of the whole translation process is to produce the best possible translation, with both the translation and editor having important role. In the final analysis, the bottom line is that the customer is happy.

When I work as an editor, I attempt to avoid imposing my writing style on the translation as I believe that a translated document is a piece of writing in itself, unique and characteristic of its writer, who happens to be a translator. In some cases, when the translator has confused or convoluted the content, it is necessary to make wholesale changes but that path is a last resort. There are many roads to Rome and almost as many ways to translate a given text. Yet, I have occasionally almost rewritten translations, producing not only a much better text but probably also harsh emotions in the actual translator.

In technical translation, the golden path in most cases involves some combination of respect of the manner of expression of the translator and loyalty to the text and the customer. For the editor, it is often difficult to find that ideal compromise. For the translator, it is necessary to learn from one’s errors while recognizing that the editor due to personal reasons or professional guidelines chose to rewrite a reasonable translation, which does not take away from the skill of the original translator. Translators need to live, learn and believe in themselves and in their ability to live and learn.

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit