Chapter 5. Five translators translate
Figure 34. Toen wij: Draft 2 final pure-line version (Geoff )Three translators (Fleur, Geoff and Irene) finished the session by rewriting their
alternative-solutions working version into a full pure-line version: see Figure 34.
Here they ignored the source poem, evaluating the target version in purely recep-
tor-language terms. Hugo and I, however, omitted this phase.
In Draft 3, the time differences distinguishing Hugo, Irene and myself from
Fleur and Geoff (see Figure 29) were reflected in different goals – a quick polish vs.
another full-going revision respectively. Thus Hugo quickly rewrote his end-of-
Draft-2 alternative-solutions version into a final pure-line version; similarly, Irene
and I quickly typed our Draft-2 handwritten version into the word processor and
then briefly revised it (Irene once, and I twice). Fleur and Geoff, by contrast, fully
revised their end-of-Draft-2 version once more into an alternative-solutions ver-
sion (with Fleur, this was hand-written), and finally re-revised this on screen into
a final pure-line version.5.3.2.3 Drafting patterns revisited
Of the three drafting patterns identified above, only my ‘mid-loaded’ pattern dif-
fers significantly from the others. However, this might only partially indicate an
underlying meta(cognitive) preference, because it was caused in great part by my
not noticing the poem’s most problematic feature until Draft 2, whereas the others
tackled it across Drafts 1 and 2 (Hugo, for instance, spent 26% of Line-specific
time on the problematic Line 1 in Draft 1, and 43% in Draft 2). The difference