Pulvers's perspective on poems is something I agree with as well. Although the goal of translating is to translate the text the way the author would like (which is usually direct), when it comes to poems, the author's intentions are slightly different. Authors in poems are writing to invoke emotions out of readers through rhymes and their poetic writing style. When translating, sometimes the words would not evoke the same emotion once translated. I think Haikus are a great example of this. The syllables are the most important aspect of this style of writing, but once translated, the English words would not have the same syllables. This must be a struggle for translators trying to stick as close to the definition of the words but also reaching this qualification.
Beichman goes into more detail about the specific aspects that Pulver went over which helped me see the challenges being applied in actual translation. I feel like they were pretty repetitive with the point they were trying to get across but did a great job of using different poem styles as examples to show the different challenges faced in different mediums. I think the most interesting realization for me was the act of putting the "spirit" back into the poem. From many of our previous readings, translators made it very clear that their job is to solely change the language of the text and not the meaning. Including our own opinions was a crime. However, with poetry there seems to be more leniency with that. Beichman brought up a lot of the translators thought processes when changing the direct translation to another meaning of the text that some what deviates from he author's original text. And yet, these translations are praised and set as an example for what should be done in translating a poem. I thought that double standard was interesting and gives poem translators a little more room to translate according to their interpretation and what they felt when reading the poem themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment