I come into this in the middle, perhaps unfairly. I'd say that we're
probably misunderstanding Eliot and Pierre--the statements as given are
simply bizarre. Why should the poem as translated into American English be
stranger or more difficult than the poem read in the original by a speaker
of American English competent in the original language? It certainly
shouldn't be less so, but why more? Sounds rather like a translator's cop-out.
There's a degree of difficulty or strangeness in reading anyone's work,
even in the same language. To the extent that one's culture differs from
that in which the poem was written the difficulty increases. So Donne is
difficult for us in ways it wasn't for his contemporaries. The question is
the extent to which the translator or reader manages to translate not only
from one language to another but from one time or place to another. How
much of what appears strange is merely an artifact of my ignorance? How
much of my ignorance am I entitled to elevate to an artifact of my culture
as I live in it?
Maybe I'm saying that there's enough strangeness or difficulty floating
around that if one avoids over-interpreting in the process of translating
it will take care of itself.
It seems to me that my job as translator is to produce, with relative
accuracy, a product that will increase curiosity about the poet. A formally
correct Mandelstam translation, say, may reproduce an aspect of his style
while mystifying English language readers about why anyone should bother.
The poet is infinitely better informed about his language and culture than
I as translator, but as translator I have (or should have) the advantage of
a similar depth of knowledge about the linguistic and cultural environment
into which the poem will arrive. Presumably I can often suggest something
of the poem's formal constraints without replicating them to the detriment
of reception.
Mark
At 11:10 PM 11/27/2000 -0000, you wrote:
>T'other night at U of L, Pierre, reading and talking about Celan said
>something along the lines that a poem which is less rather than more
>difficult in translation is probably a bad translation
>
>L
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: 27 November 2000 21:33
>Subject: Re: traductor traidor
>
>
>| >to paraphrase Eliot Weinberger, a translation *must sound like a
>| >translation* written in living English-- an English that takes advantage
>of
>| >certain possibilities not normally available to poems written in the
>| >language.
>|
>| Love this - one example, I think, is Pierre Joris' translations of Celan,
>| which have that precision and that strangeness.
>|
>| Best
>|
>| Alison
>|
>
>
|