Comments on translating poetry -Maya

 I have always felt a great difficulty in translating poetry. To be honest, I never properly tried it. To me, poetry is much harder than text, and as Pulvers said, it about the tone, the rhythm, the musicality and the poet’s voice. It would be easier to think about what the poet was trying to say while they are alive but at the same time, I am wondering whether the poet would think of it as killing the “magic” of the poem, just like how Kawabata felt–or at least I thought he felt– when he was being difficult with the translator. However, in my opinion, a poem can have different meanings according to the audience as well. A poem is not only for the poet but also for the audience as well; it is art after all. Even after reading Beichman, I do not think it is possible to translate poems as accurate as texts or movies. Although it is true that a lot of poems can be easily translated, I think its accuracy doesn’t only depend on the translator’s skills, but the Japanese language itself. It is highly rhythmical and depends on the audience’s interpreting skills as the language does not need a subject. However I do agree with the statement; ‘the aim of translation is not to produce a clone, but rather to evoke a sense of difference’ and ‘this is a defense of translation as the imperfect art, an art whose importance derives from its very “imperfection.’ These makes one remember that translation does not need to be the without faults or differences, but rather convey the feeling by the translator’s best.