I have written a new book titled 'Mountaineering In Antarctica'. It is around 200 pages long with over a hundred (I think??) colour photos and new maps for each chapter. It is being translated into French right now, and will come out in English, French, German and maybe some other language, later in 2010. No, this is not an ad.

The French translator (not actually the publisher) is trying to change all the grades to French. Hence he wants a reported Scottish III route changed to French ice grade 3. I have told him they are not the same. He also wants the classic Canadian Rockies sandbag grade of '5.9 A2' as French 5c A2. I believe the gulf between these grades to be substantial.

The problem is that I have covered ascents by climbers of different nationalities on different routes on different mountains and reported precisely what they said. I believe this reflects their experience of the route and portrays their most accurate assessment of the nature of the climb. A lot of work has gone into making this book as accurate as possible and this attempt at translation seems to be degrading the accuracy of the information involved. Some of these grades simply do not translate. Or do they?

Do you agree?
Do you care if grades have been translated from that of the first ascentionists?
Do you care if a book has different grading systems used for different climbs by different climbers?

Note: These climbs are all in Antarctica or South Georgia, so the 'seriousness' level can be considered pretty high in all cases, even if they are only a dozen pitches or so.

D

The Alpinist uses whatever system the first ascencionists reported, and I think it makes sense. If I was reading a guide book to the Alps written in English, I'd still have to learn the French alpine ratings.

Perhaps you can include an appendix with a explanation of the different rating systems?

kheegster wrote: Perhaps you can include an appendix with a explanation of the different rating systems?

This is a real good point

I agree with the others: keeping the original grade and including a conversion table, as well as some disclaimers that "things are not that simple, this table is only a rough guideline" would, in my opinion, be the best solution.

To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I'd say that you are spot on to insist on fidelity to the FA grade. I suspect that if these routes have been repeated at all (Vinson regular route excepted), they have only been climbed a handful of times. It's too early to try to impose a uniform grading system. What would it be based on?

Damien, do you have a note on ratings in your English original? If so, how does it read?

Keeping the original grades would be showing a lot of respect to the first to put up the routes. I agree with the idea of adding an appendix explaining the differences but how bout also adding a slight explanation of such varrying grades in a prologue of some sort explaining how climbing in Antarctica wasn't just pioneered by mostly 1 nationality but truely a mosaic of different cultures and nationalities.

On a side note, let us know when it's out! I'd definetly like to pick it up.

Thanks for the replies everyone - though any further comments are also welcome.

brenta - no, I had no mention of gradings, but if a table is included then I might put something there. Most of the grades apply to Queen Maud Land, as it has the most technical climbing, and overall the number of technically graded routes is relatively low.

Steve - yes, in fact none of biggest technical routes in Antarctica have been repeated, that I can think of right now. No doubt this will change in coming years, probably in Queen Maud Land when more people go onto those walls, which are very attractive, but the biggest ones are a relatively finite resource. There have already been repeats of shorter routes in QML, though just a few. There are some other technical routes on steep Peninsula peaks that have also not been repeated, though some shorter Scottish-style routes near one of the bases have had repeats.

D

If I understand correctly, you wrote (are writing) the original text in English and the translator is rendering this into French. I also assume your English original states not only the grade given by the FAist, but also the grading system they used, e.g. "Scottish III", not just "III".

Having done plenty of translations in my time, I'd say your guy is exceeding his mandate. If readers in English see multiple, foreign grading systems, then so should readers in French.

Personally I'd love to see all those grades translated to a single consistent system, in addition to the original FA-ist's native-system grade. That's 'cause I don't climb much, never mind internationally, and I'm lazy. But I think there are many people like me: very unlikely to make the effort to travel to Antarctica, so not really motivated enough to learn a bunch of climbing rating systems, but still interested enough to consider buying the book.

It's easy to give two numbers if you're writing a guidebook with a standard format for each route - just have two entries for each route, original grade and standardized rough-equivalent grade. The (US-) English edition could give standard grades in YDS (plus a commitment rating) , and the French edition could give standard grades in the French system. It's a bit more awkward if the ratings are integrated into prose, but it could be done with parenthesis.

Yep, the publishers has agreed the original ratings will remain, and a conversion table will be placed in the back somewhere. Integrating a conversion into the text was considered but I think that's a bit clunky. The translator is happy to go along.

Thanks for all the replies - they were pretty consistent with the answers to the same question over on UKClimbing.com and right in line with what I thought myself.

D