Response to the Pulvers and Beichman Readings (Grace)

 My Response to the Pulvers and Beichman Readings

    Overall, I learned quite a few things from both articles on the art of translating poetry. To begin, the article by Robert Pulvers brings up a question that I myself have thought about: Is it possible to translate poetry so that the translation has the same tone and feel of the original? Before reading this article, I thought that it wouldn't be possible, especially when the translation is done in a language that is vastly different from the original language. After reading Pulvers' article and the Beichman article, I still feel the same despite Pulvers' and Beichman's arguments claiming otherwise. One comment in particular made by Pulvers rubbed me the wrong way. Pulvers states, "The translated poem has to come naturally out of the voice of the translator in the new language. In other words, no matter how "faithful" it is to the text and the spirit of the original, it has to be a poem in its own right" (Pulvers). While I do accept that translations may have to alter the original text to preserve the rhythm and tone of the original piece, I do not agree with Pulvers' notion that the translated poem has to come naturally out of the voice of the translator, nor that it has to be a poem in its own right. The original poem is not the translator's poem, so I believe that they do not have the authority to make such drastic changes to the piece. In regards to the second issue, the poem is already a poem and translating that poem into another language should not suddenly make the poem not a poem anymore. To sum this up, I believe that the job of the translator is to accurately convey to readers the original meaning, tone, and rhythm of the original poem that does not drastically alter the contents of the original nor take ownership over the poem itself.

    I do concede however that translating poetry is a difficult task that requires the translator to pull the work through a multitude of language-based dimensions (Beichman). For translating poems from Japanese to English in particular, the task is even more difficult due to the structural differences between the languages. These difficulties surface when translating haiku in particular. In Beichman's article "Through a Glass Darkly," Beichman offers an example of a translation of a haiku. She argues that, in order to preserve the rhythm and meaning of the original, the lineation of the piece had to be altered from the traditional 5-7-5 format. While I do not agree that a translation of a haiku should differ from the DEFINING COMPONENT THAT MAKES A HAIKU A HAIKU, this example does highlight how difficult it is to provide a translation that is (1) accurate and (2) has a similar tone and rhythm to the original. I still do not believe that it is possible to translate poetry into another language and still preserve the original poem, but I am hopeful that my mind can be changed.