Beichman and Pulvers reading

 Both readings touched upon the same subject which was translating poetry and they found common grounds in saying that indeed, poetry is translatable. I think I both agree and disagree with this notion. The main reason being as Beichman said, translating poetry is like looking at it through a dark glass: we see a new light. There are both benefits and fallacies to this idea and the main one I think being, can we still call it a translation if we have to see it in a different light? I think that when it comes to poetry, there is quite literally no choice. To encapsulate the same expression, tone, rhythm and feel between two starkly different languages such as Japanese and English is impossible. Therefore in a sense, a perfect translation is never possible but at the very least I think, it could give off a similar expression and convey the same imagery. When Beichman akins translating to looking through darkened glass, I think its important to recognize how dark that glass is and analyze whether that "new light" is similar enough to the old one to call it a translation, or interpretation. 

The benefits on the flipside however, are that we get that new light. You get the second self of a poem and if you know both languages, then you get to experience two sides of the same coin. I do agree that poetry is one of the hardest art forms to translate but that doesn't mean because it's hard, the translator can create their own interpretation of it and say its a translation, it's not a valid excuse for poor translation. It requires great effort and skill to create a masterful translation and although they can't be perfect, we should at least try and get close to it. 

Jon