Even before I read the article, the topic itself is something to think about. I hadn’t considered what translating poetry would be like before, and I realized it comes with its own challenges. Notably, how does a translator preserve the style of the original writer? Poetry is very artistic, and rarely straightforward, so translating it is made even more difficult, as you want to convey the meaning of the original author while not deviating from the content itself. The question brought up in the article, “What is the poem trying to say?” has different meanings depending on how one interprets it. In a way, that reflects the differing approaches translators take to translating works.
In addition, when translating poetry, it is sometimes necessary to do more research. The section about Miyazawa’s life illuminates this well; his background and childhood give us insight into what he might have been thinking when he wrote his works and how his past experiences shaped them.
When translating poetry, translators themselves need to be able to think creatively. We have discussed the rhythm of writing in class and its importance, and it is even more so in poetry. Since a perfect translation is impossible, translators need to be able to take liberties with translations in order to both express its meaning clearly and keeping the original author’s voice in the writing.
J. Beichman, “Through the Glass Darkly”
Reading through the passage, I found the line, “so much is lost in translation that a great deal must be put back in” interesting. Beichman cites an English poet, who describes the process of translating as adding a new “spirit” into the writing, so it does not become an “empty shell”. It’s an elegant way to put translation, and a poetic take on the process.
I enjoyed the side-by-side comparisons of the original text with its translation, La Lune Blanche in particular. Due to the nature of the course, we focus on translating from Japanese to English. However, it is also interesting to see translations to and from other languages. Beichman analyzes the translation of the poem into Japanese, noting that the Japanese translator Kafū changed the wording of the poem. In doing so, it brought upon a new interpretation of the poem.
Furthermore, Beichman talks about the rhythm of poetry in her speech, comparing the pacing of Japanese poetry with their English translations. As I mentioned in my comment on Pulvers’s article, the rhythm of the writing contributes greatly to a poem. Poetry expresses a lot in little words, so aspects such as rhythm and wording become even more prominent. Beichman cites the translating of haikus, which conform to a specific number of syllables. It then falls to the translators to manipulate words to convey a similar meaning. Lastly, Beichman’s parting words about the idea of not considering translation as a reproduction of the original text, but a way to express the difference between two languages, goes against what translation is commonly viewed as. However, in a way there is truth to her words. With all the grammatical and cultural differences, a perfect recreation is impossible. Thus, it is up to the translators to fill in those gaps with their own creativity.
Alex
No comments:
Post a Comment