R. Pulvers and J. Beichman Reading (Micah)

Both Pulver and Beichman's texts focus on the ways in which translating a poem from two unrelated languages is possible, despite many thinking otherwise. There were many parts of their texts that I agreed with but there also was something that I did not fully agree with. Both pointed out that while having literal translations were necessary as a base, in order to successfully translate a poem, the translator had to step back and understand the context in which the poem was written in. This could be understanding the time period it was written in, where the original author was from, etc. With poetry's most important parts being rhythm and flow, I believe that this is very necessary as well. With an understanding of the context, it can open doors to switching out words from the literal translation with seemingly unrelated words. I think that that this is a necessary good, but when too much liberty is taken is when I disagree.

As mentioned, I believe that straying away from the literal translation can be good, but once the meaning begins to change is what I have a slight issue with. Both texts make the point that in order for a translation to portray the voice of an original poem, the translator has to take matters into their own hands and go beyond the literal translation. The example in Pulver's text where they decide to start the first three lines with "Strong in the ... " despite the literal translation being "I won't give into" makes sense as it doesn't completely change the meaning. But in the example in Beichman's text on the translation of "La Lune Blanche," the meaning changes. The original text describes a lover calling out to their dear one, but in the translation, it reads as if the moon is calling out to the forest, which are two completely different meanings. I think that this is taking it too far, and although some wording can change, I don't think the meanings should.