Suis - On Pulvers and Beichman

Roger Pulvers says of translating poetry that “it is akin to actors getting their lines down. Memorizing lines alone does not make for a good performance” (1). He then writes of translating poetry from languages that are linguistically unrelated:

“You absorb the poem and assimilate it in a process that can only be described as ‘organic.’ Then, to mix the metaphor, you drag it through a wormhole into another universe, one controlled by the laws of your own language” (2).

I found these analogies very helpful in conceptualizing the process of translating poetry. A translation of a poem can be faithful, but if it lacks the consideration of rhythm and flow, it is inadequate. Furthermore, one has to figure out how to translate or configure meaning, rhythm, flow, etc in the respective language they are translating to. I felt that Pulver’s example of translating “ame ni mo makezu” to “strong in the rain” works very well. Although it is not an entirely faithful translation, the sentiment and rhythm is retained. Part of Pulver’s process in translating the poem was researching the poet’s background–something that I often overlook, but agree that it is crucial.

Janine Beichman writes of Donald Keene’s edit of Sakanishi Shio’s translation of My Songs that “tiny changes can make or break a translation” (109). I am reminded that poetry, unlike prose, can be brief, and in that way, every word holds tremendous weight. Tadashi Kondo and William J. Higginson’s translation of Red Fuji takes into account the importance of enjambment and the visual effect of the text on paper. They reproduced the enjambment in the original haiku while keeping the first line the shortest as to suggest “the way the road itself runs on into the darkness” (113). I felt this was a perfect example of preserving the visual effect of the original poem in its translation. However, I am conflicted about Beichman’s alteration of Yosano Akiko’s tanka form in her translation and her statement that translating poetry “is not [about producing] a clone, but rather [evoking] a sense of difference” (119). Translating poetry is exceedingly difficult but as someone who favors accuracy in all the ways possible, I’m not sure I agree with the alteration of form in such a drastic way. I’m also not sure if her translation reflects the translation philosophies of the aforementioned Keene or Higginson (or Pulver from the other article). Perhaps she dragged the poem through a wormhole.