9/28 Reading Comments

    Reading these 2 texts really puts into perspective just how difficult it is to translate between two languages where things such as syllables, nuances, and grammar structure greatly vary. Translators must not only maintain the textual correctness of the original, but also effectively assimilate the original into a recreation of it in their own language as described by Pulvers. I think this especially applies to specially formatted poems such as Haikus or Tankas where an emphasis is put on rhythm and structure. It is particularly difficult considering that there is no guarantee that any two equivalent words in the 2 languages have the same amount of syllables, same nuance, or even contribute rhythmically the same way. 

    That is why I found Pulver's approach to translating poetry quite interesting: Translators must be well acquainted with the context of the original poem, and through the use of technical creative skills, reformat the content in accordance to their own language's set of rules. Taking a look at "Ame ni mo makezu", Pulver distances himself from the syntax of the original and instead focuses more on the focal words of rain, wind, and snow. The repetition of "Strong in the ___" preserves the rhythmic integrity of the original. One thing that Miyazawa does do in the poem is only revealing the subject of the poem at the last line. I believe that if a translator decided to include the subject prior to the last line, it would harm both the rhythm of the poem and the sense of closure that a reader would receive as briefly mentioned by Beichman.

    The text by Beichman discussed in detail the impact the inclusion or exclusion of a couple words could make. Though I'm not sure if I agree with Keene's changing of "spare" to "hoarded" in his translation of "My Songs", I do agree with the alteration of changing "my soul has no gills" to "my soul swims without gills". The alteration provides a more active description of the author's soul. As a reader, I'm more easily able to draw a parallel between that line to the imagery of a fish as opposed to the other. I don't think that vivid and concrete imagery is necessarily better when it comes to translation, though. It is more important to maintain the original rhythm and context/feel of a poem. However, if vivid and concrete imagery were able to be included without impacting the rhythm and feel, I think that it would be better to include them.