In Beichman's text, he brings up the difficulty in translating poetry which I agree with because it is for no other genre that the rhythm, rhyme and flow take upmost importance. Previously, we discussed that it's important to translate not only for accuracy but also to preserve the mood and subtleties of Japanese in novels and stories so I can only imagine how much more difficult to translate poetry. Beichman emphasizes that so much is lost so "a great deal" must be put back in which I can see how that is happening in the examples given. In the example of Keene's translation, I really liked the use alliteration to mimic strong Japanese assonance to keep the same sound of the poetry. While, of course, translated poetry is never going to be exactly the same, I think translators do a really great job of combining both direct translations with certain omissions and additions to make it "feel" as authentic as possible.
Both texts emphasize the fact that great poetry can be translated, although not as accurately as some people would like. Pulvers emphasizes the fact that a poem's "voice" is everything and to an extent, I agree. We romanticize and read poems for the rhythm, flow and the message it delivers, not how well it was directly translated. If anything, the strange Japanese to English sentence structure would do little to enhance our reading experience. While we cannot "salvage the language" in its entirety, in translating poems, maintaining the feel, rhythm, and theme is the most important for an enjoyable read.
No comments:
Post a Comment