Although logically I knew that poetry was translated, it still surprised me to read about translators who actually translate poetry. Translators often lament over the inevitable trade off that one must sacrifice some element of the original. Because of this, it seems that translating poetry is impossible because every element is so crucial and both meaning and tone is essential to both understanding and the emotion that a poem conveys. However, Pulvers discusses that the meaning must be understood and reconstructed, not replicated. This led me to think that if one is really recreating, though dependent on how much actually becomes changed due to translation, how much of the translated poem is actually the translator's rather than the author. As discussed in previous readings, it seems that the translator's job is not to upstage or revise too much of the original.
I am especially impressed with translators who translate some of the more special forms of Japanese poetry such as the haiku and the tanka, especially some of the more historic and significant pieces. The rhythm is an essential part of such poems and it seems that in many cases the equivalent word doesn't have the same length, tone, or feel. For historic poetry, it reminded me of a previous discussion in class and made me curious whether translators would consider the age of a piece and its equivalency to the language they are translating to. For example, some translations I have read poems from the Kojiki seem to focus more on conveying meaning but do not attempt to recreate it in historically accurate English. I suspect this is likely due to the fact that it would make it harder for people to understand and that is an important part of translation but I am curious to know if that is something that is considered by translators.
No comments:
Post a Comment