Pulvers and Beichman commentary

Poems have fewer words than other forms of writings, which means that with the small number of words they have in the poem, the translator has to deliver the message including the background and atmosphere. Therefore, I believe that although poetry can be translated, meanings and other important elements will get lost in translation. I thought both Pulvers and Beichman’s writings were very interesting because they both supported the idea of poetry can be translated into other languages. It was also interesting to compare poems written in different languages. Pulvers mentioned that “how” and recreating the original meaning allows poems to be translated into another language, which I understand, however, I still believe that poetry is an art so the meaning is not the only factor that makes poems. Even if the translator understands backgrounds and resonates with the poet, there are other important elements such as sounds and wordplay, which cannot be translated. Beichman gives examples of successful translation of poems for each element of poems, however, the translator is changing how the original poem is written slightly in order to adapt to their culture or their language. This creates a great poem in another language and, however, I do not like how the translator changes the way the poem is written purposely. After reading both writings, I was able to understand how some poems deliver a very similar message and nuances, however, I still believe that translating a poem cannot be perfect and important elements get lost in translation.

 

Mitsy