After reading both the articles about translating poetry, I can see how the topic can become very divisive. I think Roger Pulvers' method of recreating the poem is probably the most straightforward way to translate poetry from language to another. Paying full attention to the author's purpose and what they were trying to say in the poem and working from there will give you better results than trying to find the exact same word or phrase in the target language. I also think that way works because what sounds beautiful in one language may not sound beautiful in another, so it isn't necessary to be exact with every single word. However, when I read the translated version of "Ame ni mo makezu" I felt that I wanted to read the original version of the poem instead. I think the idea of losing to something/someone is the part of the element that I would resonate with the most. When translating poetry into English, there is a risk of the poetry coming out sounding too much like inspirational quotes you see on Pinterest and not something that a professional poet wrote.
Something I found interesting while reading the translated poems, is how the different translators chose to address rhythm. I saw how there were many options for expressing the rhythm in the target language, like using alteration, or breaking up the lines in a different way. Ultimately, the interpretation of the whole piece, and thinking about what the poet did not say explicitly, plays a big role in how the translation of a poem will come out. Although I think the translators have found very creatively approaches to translating poems, I still feel like the only way I wouldn't feel like something is missing from the translation is if I knew nothing about the original language or poet before reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment