At BloombergBusinessweek Christina Larson writes how Book Publishers Try to Sell Chinese Fiction in Translation.
Unfortunately, she claims, near the beginning:
As longtime readers know, I loathe the 'three percent'-figure -- and its mystery appearance here is one of the reasons. But at least here the red flag should be obvious to one and all: if 453 is three per cent of: "the total books published in the U.S." -- well, a quick calculation leads to the inescapable conclusion that all of 15,100 books were published in the US in 2012. And no matter what you reckon is a 'book', that's way too few.
But that's hardly the only problem, even with just that sentence/claim. Where did the 453 title-number come from ? Chad Post's invaluable Translation Database at Three Percent; see here, for example, for a discussion of some of these numbers -- which includes the observation that, for the database, Chad did indeed find 453 titles in translation (384 fiction, 69 poetry) published in 2012.
What's the problem ? Well, for one Larson babbles about how: "American publishers purchased translation rights" for these titles. Did they ? Surely not all of them -- some of these works are out of copyright, and no rights had to be purchased.
More importantly, the database only covers some translated titles -- fiction and poetry. No non-fiction (guess what ? -- that's a significant part of the market; see below), no children's books, no drama, etc. (In addition, the database only covers newly-translated works: if it's been available in a previous translation it isn't eligible.)
Yes, a lot of this has little to do with Larson's basic, simple point: little Chinese fiction gets translated into English. But why does she have to throw around these other numbers (which she does not seem to have a good handle on) ?
Larson also notes:
[A quick lazy search finds some 2010 numbers in a Frankfurt Book Fair report (warning ! dreaded pdf format !): in 2010 China acquired 13,724 foreign titles, with 5,284 from the US, 2,429 from the UK, 1,766 from Japan, 1,027 from South Korea, 739 from Germany, and 737 from France. Particularly worth noting here: of all the German translation rights sold into the Chinese-speaking territories (including the separately counted Hong Kong and Taiwan), a mere 6.6 per cent were the fiction/literature titles of the sort counted in the Three Percent Translation Database. A whopping 59 per cent were children's/YA titles, and 21.8 per cent were non-fiction, and 12 per cent were technical books. Even if the English translations bought by the Chinese were not quite in the same proportions, clearly her comparison of the 16 and 453 numbers (of translations-into-English, from the Translation Database) with translations into the Chinese generally is in the apples-and-oranges category, and not just misleading but close to irrelevant.]
There's also obviously no copy editor in the house, as the article 'sums up':
Of course, the reverse flow is smaller -- though not as much as implied here. The same source she relies on for the 14,708 foreign book copyrights bought by Chinese publishers number also reveals the number sold by Chinese publishers (find it here (warning ! dreaded pdf format !), for example) in 2011 -- and that's: 5,922. (Okay, that's why she didn't mention it: that gives a rather different impression than the 16 Chinese titles (translated into English) she found on the Translation Database .....)
The interesting aside here: the same data also gives a number for total titles published in China in 2011 -- 369,500. And 14,708 foreign book copyrights presumably translated into Chinese accounts for ... 3.98% of all titles. And suddenly it appears the Chinese aren't that much more enthusiastic translators than the Americans (if you believe/orient yourself on the infamous 'three percent'-number). Take that with a huge grain of salt, of course -- these numbers (all of them) aren't anywhere so clear cut (there are a host of definitional issues, beginning and ending with what constitutes a 'book') -- but rest assured, this is one really badly put-together piece on non-journalism. (I realize it's 'just' about publishing, and everyone spouts nonsense in this pseudo-business, but come on, folks !)
One piece of advice I would offer readers who do look at these sorts of articles: if 'three percent' is mentioned to -- as the approximate percentage of books (or works of fiction or whatever) in translation in English -- take great care. Me, when I see that, I'm starting just to see red .....
Unfortunately, she claims, near the beginning:
In 2012, American publishers purchased translation rights for just 453 foreign titles, about 3 percent of the total books published in the U.S.That sounds nice and authoritative; it is, of course, nonsense. (Is there anyone resembling a fact-checker who looks at these articles ?)
As longtime readers know, I loathe the 'three percent'-figure -- and its mystery appearance here is one of the reasons. But at least here the red flag should be obvious to one and all: if 453 is three per cent of: "the total books published in the U.S." -- well, a quick calculation leads to the inescapable conclusion that all of 15,100 books were published in the US in 2012. And no matter what you reckon is a 'book', that's way too few.
But that's hardly the only problem, even with just that sentence/claim. Where did the 453 title-number come from ? Chad Post's invaluable Translation Database at Three Percent; see here, for example, for a discussion of some of these numbers -- which includes the observation that, for the database, Chad did indeed find 453 titles in translation (384 fiction, 69 poetry) published in 2012.
What's the problem ? Well, for one Larson babbles about how: "American publishers purchased translation rights" for these titles. Did they ? Surely not all of them -- some of these works are out of copyright, and no rights had to be purchased.
More importantly, the database only covers some translated titles -- fiction and poetry. No non-fiction (guess what ? -- that's a significant part of the market; see below), no children's books, no drama, etc. (In addition, the database only covers newly-translated works: if it's been available in a previous translation it isn't eligible.)
Yes, a lot of this has little to do with Larson's basic, simple point: little Chinese fiction gets translated into English. But why does she have to throw around these other numbers (which she does not seem to have a good handle on) ?
Larson also notes:
Books translated from English continue to flood into China. According to the China Book Business Report, a trade paper owned by the China Publishing Group, Chinese publishers bought 14,708 foreign book copyrights in 2011.First off, again: is there an editor in the house ? "Chinese publishers bought 14,708 foreign book copyrights" -- emphasis added. No word (or number) as to how many of those were "translated from English", so we only have her anecdotal evidence that these are the foreign ones flooding in (rather than translations from other languages). Not good reporting (even though the point is, in fact, basically true).
[A quick lazy search finds some 2010 numbers in a Frankfurt Book Fair report (warning ! dreaded pdf format !): in 2010 China acquired 13,724 foreign titles, with 5,284 from the US, 2,429 from the UK, 1,766 from Japan, 1,027 from South Korea, 739 from Germany, and 737 from France. Particularly worth noting here: of all the German translation rights sold into the Chinese-speaking territories (including the separately counted Hong Kong and Taiwan), a mere 6.6 per cent were the fiction/literature titles of the sort counted in the Three Percent Translation Database. A whopping 59 per cent were children's/YA titles, and 21.8 per cent were non-fiction, and 12 per cent were technical books. Even if the English translations bought by the Chinese were not quite in the same proportions, clearly her comparison of the 16 and 453 numbers (of translations-into-English, from the Translation Database) with translations into the Chinese generally is in the apples-and-oranges category, and not just misleading but close to irrelevant.]
There's also obviously no copy editor in the house, as the article 'sums up':
The bottom line: Chinese publishers bought the China rights to more than 1,400 foreign titles in 2011. The reverse flow is much smaller.Okay, technically this might be true -- but obviously they didn't mean to write "1,400 foreign titles" but rather are referring to the "14,708 foreign book copyrights" (i.e. meant to write: "14,000 foreign titles"). Whether the reverse flow is much smaller isn't clear from the data Larson provides. Yes, very few Chinese novels, in first translation, are published in English; other than that she's (inexplicably) provided no hard numbers of the 'reverse flow' whatsoever.
Of course, the reverse flow is smaller -- though not as much as implied here. The same source she relies on for the 14,708 foreign book copyrights bought by Chinese publishers number also reveals the number sold by Chinese publishers (find it here (warning ! dreaded pdf format !), for example) in 2011 -- and that's: 5,922. (Okay, that's why she didn't mention it: that gives a rather different impression than the 16 Chinese titles (translated into English) she found on the Translation Database .....)
The interesting aside here: the same data also gives a number for total titles published in China in 2011 -- 369,500. And 14,708 foreign book copyrights presumably translated into Chinese accounts for ... 3.98% of all titles. And suddenly it appears the Chinese aren't that much more enthusiastic translators than the Americans (if you believe/orient yourself on the infamous 'three percent'-number). Take that with a huge grain of salt, of course -- these numbers (all of them) aren't anywhere so clear cut (there are a host of definitional issues, beginning and ending with what constitutes a 'book') -- but rest assured, this is one really badly put-together piece on non-journalism. (I realize it's 'just' about publishing, and everyone spouts nonsense in this pseudo-business, but come on, folks !)
One piece of advice I would offer readers who do look at these sorts of articles: if 'three percent' is mentioned to -- as the approximate percentage of books (or works of fiction or whatever) in translation in English -- take great care. Me, when I see that, I'm starting just to see red .....