I definitely agree with the idea that translation should recreate the poem’s voice rather than simply copy its words. Pulvers explains that tone is “everything,” describing translation as dragging a poem “through a wormhole” into a new linguistic universe where it must still sound natural.
My main takeaway from the two readings was that translation requires devotion to both the original text and the target languages. As Beichman mentioned, translation can be “an entirely selfish act,” where translators bring together the two languages they love within themselves. There is also a lot of weight put on translator’s creativity and comprehension - as there is a lot lost in translation that “a great deal must be put back in”.
I especially liked Pulvers’s discussion of Miyazawa Kenji’s “Ame ni mo makezu,” where he translated “I won’t give in to the rain” into “Strong in the rain / Strong in the wind / Strong against the summer heat and snow.” Despite shifting from negative to positive, it maintains the rhythm, repetition, and quiet strength of the original, which I think is crucial when translating poems.
This example also helped me understand Pulvers’s point that being “faithful”often means being faithful to the feeling, and not for the literal meaning. Overall, both readings taught me that translation is not always about preserving the original, but it is also about restoring whatever feelings, rhythms, and nuances that get lost between the linguistic barrier of different languages
No comments:
Post a Comment