R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading (Daniel)

To begin with, I found the article by Pulvers to be extremely insightful, particularly in its breakdown and analysis of the meaning of “tone.” I found Pulvers’ way of explaining tone as the “voice” of the poem to be very unique, but also quite understandable. I agree with Pulvers that a translated poem must speak in the same tone or “voice” as the original text, as it is not simply the literal meaning you are trying to translate, but the deeper essence that makes poetry so impactful in the first place. Nonetheless, I found this to be somewhat of a departure from what we as a class have read regarding translating texts such as novels, where there is much more of an emphasis on not trying to add or take away anything, but being as faithful to the original version as possible.

The article by Beichman was equally insightful, and I found it very interesting to be able to read about what goes through a translator’s head when they go through the delicate process of translating poetry. I found that similar to Pulvers, Beichman believed that it is inevitable that a translator must impose their own changes upon the original poem in order to preserve the feeling, rhythm, and tone of the original. The techniques and strategies Beichman showcased were all extremely interesting, although I did find myself in partial disagreement with some of her choices. In particular, her choice to change how Yosano Akiko’s poem is visually written seemed to me to be overstepping certain boundaries. I believe that a translator of poetry must make omissions and additions in order to preserve the same spirit of the original, but completely altering the left-hand margin more and more to the right seemed like slightly much.