"On Translating Poetry"
1. Pulver states that extensive research into the original poet is necessary for good poetry translations. Do you believe this to be necessary?
"Through a Glass Darkly"
2. Given the excellent translations of Japanese poetry in the article, do you believe that the argument concerning Japanese's ambiguity/difficulty to translate is valid?
3. Beichman argues that translation is purely a selfish act, and it is not really about building bridges between cultures. What do you think of her statement?
My thoughts:
1. While I think that extensive research can improve the quality of a
poetry translation, I think there is a point at which research can
hinder the translator. When a person is buried in their research
concerning the poem, I think it can over-complicate the task. Rather,
reading the poem multiple times, getting a feel for it, drafting a
translation, and then researching is probably a better avenue. By
understanding the poet after allowing creative flow, the translator can
reevaluate their work and adjust as needed.
2. I no longer believe in the argument's validity. The translations from the article were phenomenal, and to me, they showed that I have a lot to learn. My Japanese ability is not where I want it yet, and I think that manifests itself in my anxiety concerning Japanese - English translation. As I improve and continue studying the language, it gradually becomes clearer, and in turn, easier to translate. Poetry is an art of its own, so seeing these translations was inspiring.
3. I don't quite agree with her. It might be because I wish to pursue a career in translation, but I don't like to see my ambitions as selfish. It was because of translators that I developed an interest in Japanese language and culture, and I hope to inspire similar feelings among future generations of English-speakers. While I have a lot to learn, I think that translation is a difficult and mentally taxing profession. It is also known for not having stellar wages. So I would think that there has to be some selflessness involved in doing translations.
1. I think that research is quite necessary when translating poems since poetry can have so many hidden meanings or references that a translator might miss if they don't know anything about the author or what their life was like.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think ambiguity is the worst problem when translating Japanese, but I can understand an argument that it is difficult to understand sometimes. Subjects are omitted a lot of the time, but I feel like if you understand the context of the situation you can pin down a subject. Especially with genders, Japanese can be very ambiguous sometimes, which may be intentional sometimes but usually not, but I don't think that that's the biggest issue.
3. I can agree that translation is selfish in that you as a translator are taking the author's words and changing them to whatever you personally see fit, but I wouldn't call translating inherently selfish. I think the main intent of translation is building bridges between cultures, and translating pieces from other languages helps people from different cultures and ways of life understand each other better.
1. I think research at a certain degree is necessary for a good translation. However, to me what's more important than extensive research is wether or not the translator himself/herself connects to the original text. How does the translator feel about the original text? Does he/she understand the author's thoughts behind the words? If too much research was done prior to translating, my concern is that those research might override the translator's own thoughts about the original work which complicates the process of translation in a negative way.
ReplyDelete2. The translations in the article are amazing. However, I don't think the awesomeness of those translations takes away the difficulty of translating Japanese into English. There are distinct cultural barriers and language structure differences laying between Japanese and English which can result in ambiguity in literatures. I actually think ambiguity in different language literatures make translation interesting since translators have their own unique ways dealing with ambiguity when looking at the same piece of work.
3. I don't quite agree with her. I think translation is building a relationship between two or multiple cultures. Without this bonding relationship, translation lost its soul because the translated version is most likely to lose the tone of the original work. However, while translating a piece of work, it is especially hard for translators to directly translate word by word. Sentence structure re-organization is a way that translators recreate the work which sometimes can be seen as a selfish act (not with a bad intention tho).
1. I think it definitely helps to do research on the original poet when translating poetry, however I don’t think it necessarily creates a better translation. Some research on the poet and their cultural background is definitely recommended, but if the translator focuses too much on replicating the exact original piece, the translated poem might lose its authenticity, flow, etc. Also, in general I think the approach to exactly replicate the original poem into another language is virtually impossible, since the translated work is written by a new author, in a new language, with a new audience in mind.
ReplyDelete2. No, I think the translations in the article prove the argument of Japanese’s ambiguity to be wrong. I commend the translators for being so precise and creative with their translations as well, not afraid to change the layout or word arrangements of the poems. I still do think Japanese is difficult to translate, however, especially Japanese poetry.
3. I think translation could be interpreted as selfish, but in the end it really is benefitting so many people other than the translator and original author. Translations give people who speak one language access to a whole new collection of thoughts, writing styles, and cultures.
1. I think that research into the background of a poet can be crucial. In the case of Kenji Miyazawa, understanding the circumstances from which he came proved beneficial in translating and contextualizing his work.
ReplyDelete2. I'm not sure about this. My exposure to original Japanese poetry does not extend far beyond this article. In a way, it feels both clear and vague at once. Lines usually are more of fragments, but yet, the words are there, clearly laid out. The English translations to me feel more robust. Not in the sense that they are better, but in that they simply feel fuller. The Japanese feels more like fragments of meaning, while the English feels more put together. I fear that this may be an instance of interlingual disconnect where due to a deeply ingrained way of perceiving the world, a way of perceiving built around (in my case) one language, one simply can never truly understand things from a new linguistic perspective. So I can't really answer this question. I kind of see both sides.
3. I've never thought about it this way, but yeah, I guess translating is a sort of selfish act. I suppose the alternative is people in one culture learning the language and customs of another en masse. Even from the perspective of the translator, one who is multilingual, it is somewhat selfish. Bringing a work into one's mother tongue puts it in terms that best line up with one's truest way of perceiving the world. Although I suppose frequent translation of one author could lead to that author purposefully altering their style/content to appeal more to an overseas audience, which would be a form of cross-cultural interaction (take Murakami and American influence on his work, for example).