Beichman and Pulvers

 Both Beichman and Pulvers illustrate the same idea that poetry can be translated, while recreation would be needed. I like Beichman's point that small changes make a great impact on the poem. It is especially seen from the translations of My Song how word choice could enhance the beauty of the poem. On the other hand, Pulvers goes with big changes that "turns a negative force into a positive one, and the resulting language has a quality that mirrors the language in the realm of the original." While I can understand his purpose in doing so, there is something I don't feel quite right about. It is not to say his translations are not to the point, but I would feel there should be a way that slight changes can be enough to convey the Japanese author's intention.

The title of the reading of Beichman is also interesting. She compared translation to seeing through a glass darkly, and I think it is wonderful. It is how I would feel sometimes while translating: I would read the sentences over and over again, but it is hard to understand the true purpose of the author. She also ends the reading by saying that we see through the glass darkly, but in the darkness, there is a new light. I think it correlates with how she thinks that translation is "the imperfect art," and how the "imperfection" is the new light that brings a second face in another language.

Iris