Alex - Pulvers and Beichman

 I thought that these two pieces brought up an important question—how is it possible for a translator to faithfully convey a poem in another language? I had previously thought that this was almost impossible (at least in terms of maintaining the same quality), due to the extremely complex, nuanced, and stylistic nature of poetry as an art form. However, I thought that Beichman provided some very intriguing examples of the adaptation of poetry into and from the Japanese language. I think I didn't realize that one could take such creative liberty in adjusting the syntax, word choice, etc., because translating other types of materials requires one to be true to the author's intent, tone, word choice, etc. 

However, in poetry as well, you can stay true to the author's voice while still altering the translation; the alteration is specifically for the purpose of maintaining the voice of the poem. It's a fine line to walk though, in my opinion. At what point does it become too separate from the source material? I believe the altered translation is definitely a poem in and of itself, but is it the same poem? Does it need to be the same poem? I'm not quite sure myself. But I do realize now how the translation of poetry can be an art form by itself. It requires the same amount of forethought and creativity that writing poetry does.