Today I am realizing that I am going to be writing plenty of scenes like this in the near future, so I need to decide on how best to portray them. I've used two methods, but I'm not sure if I should mix them freely, or stick to one particular method and keep it consistent. I'd appreciate any advice on the subject. I'm currently leaning towards "mix them up, depending on the length and/or importance of the dialogue at the time." One is for the (first person) narrator to say something, and then the translator answers him directly. Perhaps most suitable for brief conversations, or if the person translating has something to say themselves, rather than just a simple word for word repetition of the answer they received. For example: “She says she is sorry that the food was not cooked properly,” Dr. Rojas told me. “What?” I laughed, “This is spectacular. Tell her. Oh, and give her our thanks, of course.” She did so, and returned with, “It tastes better out of an.. ‘earthen oven?’ But there wasn’t enough time. Takes hours.” The other way I have written such scenes is by removing the translator somewhat, and let there be more of a direct dialogue between the two characters who are speaking through the translator. This might be better for more lengthy discussions with plenty of back and forth: “Why does Chaski live so far from the nearest village?” I asked her as we stopped for a snack, with Dr. Rojas translating for us. “The gods prefer this,” was the response. “Why?” “I heard Chaski say it is because it’s easier for them to find him.” “Find him? As in, locate?” She shook her head as my question was translated, indicating that I misunderstood. “He is closer to the magic that lets him speak with them.”
I also like both. But you don't always have to report the words that were said—sometimes you can just give the gist of the exchange: "I inquired about the airspeed of unladen swallows, and was asked to qualify whether those were African or European... "
You could also vary things with the quality of the translator. In James Clavell's "Shogun" one of the interpreters is excellent, can translate almost simultaneously, and can even convey some of the emotional content of the original language. A second interpreter takes in what is said, then gives a synopsis, which causes the occasional misunderstanding. In the first case the MC notes that after a while he forgot that there was in interpreter, and unless the interpreter needed to make a contextual explanation to the MC, is not even mentioned for most of the scene. The second interpreter makes for tension or humor with the occasional misunderstandings. Interpreters are sometimes used in diplomacy even when both sides can speak a common language. It allows for contemplation of what was said while the translation comes across, and the interpreters can be blamed for misunderstandings. I recently re-watched "Arrival" (2016). Now that's what I call interpretation/translation!
These are interesting uses of the interpreter character, thank you for mentioning this. Interpreter also sounds much better than "translator." I could play around with them a bit more; there are indeed two guides on the expedition, one very local, and the other more regional. Perhaps the local could be hiding things, doesn't pass along certain information, and the regional notices, warns MC, etc. Get a little more drama going. And yeah, Arrival rules. Ted Chiang's Stories of Your Life and Others is simply genius. I'll never be able to write like him.
Oh, I was just acknowledging his skill and my own limitations. I like to think I have a fairly accurate idea of what I'm capable of. I aim to simply tell entertaining stories that keep the reader turning pages. I'm playing checkers where people like Chiang are playing 3D chess, but I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.
I don't know about anyone else, but at least to me, the two words are similar but not the same. To me, a translator is more professional and serves specifically that purpose. For instance, a well-educated local asset brought along to assist an operation in a foreign country may be a translator. On the other hand, I think of interpreters as being simply anyone who interprets. If you're on vacation in Mexico and some local starts talking to you and your friend knows a little bit of Spanish, your friend is an interpreter. You mentioned playing with varying levels of translation quality, so perhaps this gives some thoughts on how to delineate things. EDIT: Oh wow this thread is old. I don't know how I got here. My apologies. I still hope this helps somebody, though.
Haha no worries, it was fun to remember this thread. That book has long since been finished, and now I am quite well-versed in writing dialogues which include interpreters !
Even though this thread is old here's my answer : I usually 'cheat' and have the characters in my story who understand the language being spoken reply with what the thing being said is. It's a weird approach but it works when used in moderation. For example, one character says 'greetings to you dear friend' in Italian, the multilingual character goes 'ooh, Italian, greetings to you as well dear friend!' basically explaining to the reader what the person said without really explaining it. Lucky for me the Kitsune in my story are natural polyglots so they understand most languages (and even talk to animals like it's a thing normal people do) Another approach is to go with the Chewbaka and Han solo relationship. Have the character react as if they understand what was said.
If a translator is specified as telling A what B said, it's assumed that A's comments will be translated for B, without the need for the translator to actually be transcribed. "I don't like it a bit," I told the translator, who relayed it to Chang. "It doesn't matter what you like," Chang replied. "It will happen just the same." At that point, any mention of the translator could be dispensed with. An interesting thing happened to me some years back at the post office. I watched a Latino man, whose English was rudimentary, speaking to a postal clerk whose Spanish was likewise rudimentary. The Latino was speaking English, and the clerk was speaking Spanish. At first, I thought, "This doesn't make sense." But then I realized that it made perfect sense, because neither one was likely to hear anything, or say anything, that the other man didn't understand.
