While reading these articles, I had a hard time reconciling their words and examples with translation. Pulvers said that "'the key to the "how" lies in the word 're-creation'", and Beichman recall's Waley's words that "so much is lost in translation that a great deal must be put back in". Is this really faithful translation, then, if what we're doing with poetry is more akin to creating something new, rather than preserving the original intent?
It made sense to me for many of the examples given in Beichman's article, until the discussion of Nagai Kafu's translation of La Lune Blanche. With Kafu, "the subtle spirit of Verlaine’s poem has been lovingly tended by putting in something—very slight, but also significant—that is new." In this, I disagree - while it is true that Kafu kept the reverence and awe of the moon shining through a vibrant forest, he completely removes the second vital part to the original French poem, the sharing of such feelings with another (my beloved). In Kafu's, the trees are the ones who say 'Ah, my beloved', implying a solitary subject, but Verlaine's words imply a partner to the main subject, which is not carried over into the Japanese translation. Yes, Kafu's translation is a complete poem in its own right, but it to me, it appears more of a new creation, inspired by Verlaine, than a translated work - is it accurate, if you choose to add or deviate?
No comments:
Post a Comment