Pulvers and Beichman

 Both Pulvers and Beichman believe that poetry is translatable between languages. For me, I only believe that to an extent. For example, translating poetry between romance languages would more easily keep its original intent because of its grammar, vocabulary, sentences structure, etc. But between Japanese and English, I think it would be really difficult to convey its original intent and for the most part, a lot of it is lost in translation.

In Pulver's translation of Ame ni mo makezu, one of the lines goes as "Watashi wa zettai ni makenai" which literally translates as "I absolutely won't give in" but he opts for "I'm definitely going to get through it". Pulver says that 'the wormhole of recreation 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.', which I do think that the translation mirrors the original in a sense I don't like it. The mood of the original compared to the translation is just different, it isn't exactly what the poet tried to convey. I am not saying that I can do any better or downplaying Pulver's translation, but this type of translation just doesn't sit right with me. Pulver says in the text, 'Distancing yourself from the syntax of the original may be the way to get closest to that original.' 

If I were to read Pulver's translation and the original poem, I would probably be able to tolerate it, I wouldn't like it, but I would tolerate it because it wasn't too radical of a change. I cannot say the same for Beichman.

In the reading, Beichman says a multitude of things about the editing, sound, lineation, and flow. I can understand from where she is coming from but for her translations I just can't help but feel conflicted. In Kojiki, Beichman talks about how this poem has this wavelike flow into a moment of closure where it stops and then you go on from there. She then says, "In tanka I think it works better- there may be exceptions of course- but in this particular poem I think it works better to try and imagine it as not having an closure, just melting into the page." I don't know why but that one sentences just really irritates me. I cannot put it into words. For her translation, she decides to start new lines, put indentations, use a one word line, and match up the line endings to form a type of slope. I do understand that this is what you interpret this poem as but I feel like this is just a disservice to the original poet. Is this really what the poet wanted? Rather than translating, I think she just made a whole new poem.

Brian