I think the difference between Alison's and Rebecca's positions is more of
emphasis than substance. "I don't really like that old joke, since I think
it's a false choice and hope as a translator to always have both, fidelity
to the original in all of its elements that I can be aware of, and beauty
in the translation. And in practice, choosing beauty in English over
fidelity to the original is often to lose or not bring over various
elements of beauty in the original" has to be, I think, the goal of any
good translator (there are lots who think otherwise. I'd call what they do
imitations or versions, not translations), and if it can be achieved with a
trot, ok, tho that tends to be risky. Think of the poet's intentions, as
best one understands them, as the set of limitations within which one
attempts to create something beautiful in English. Otherwise, why bother
with the original at all?
Mark
At 05:48 PM 1/16/2005, you wrote:
>I've got to (willingly!) with Allison. At best, literal or prose-like
>translations, afford the opportunity to get a literally prosaic of what's
>occurred in the poem. Isn't it the Loeb editions of classical poets that
>provide the poems in a prose version? They are fun to read and helpful.
>Kenneth Rexroth was famous for taking Loeb - or other people's translations
>of Chinese and other languages - and creating translations that are
>remarkably good. I have talked to people who really know Chinese and English
>and they speak very highly, for example, of Rexroth's "100 Poems of the
>Chinese." But Rexroth was/is a very good poet in English as well.
>
>By the way, a confession: I said George E - of the Greek translations - also
>worked in sculpture. C'est pas vrai! I was confusing him with George Quasha.
>My apologies for the stupid confusion. By my sense of sculpture - working
>with volumes and surfaces -that tactile sense of the texture of language
>(its 'thingness') is very much in accord with how I write poems and how I
>read and appreciate the work of others.
>
>Stephen V
>Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Rebecca
> >
> > The problem of translating poetry is that it can't be done. How can you
> > render a work that foregrounds the particular sounds and rhythms and
> > semantic associations of one language into another? But of course,
> > translations happen all the time: and personally I'm grateful that they do.
> > If you read two or three or four versions of a poet's work, as I often do,
> > then you might end up with a sense of what they hold in common, which might
> > be something like what the poet was doing. All the same, I am always going
> > to prefer those translations that make the most beautiful poems in English.
> > As a poet and reader, beauty matters to me; and I have a fairly broad idea
> > of what I mean by that, which includes what is often called
> unbeautiful. As
> > a poet, and I don't see what can be done about that, I am English-centric;
> > it's my language, it's my material, it's what I make poems out of; and my
> > primary interest is always going to be, in the end, what disturbances
> > translations might create in its fabric, how it might be torn open slightly
> > or stretched or warped into some new possibility of expression.
> >
> > Arguments about translations are always going to be about
> subjectivities, as
> > are all arguments about poetry. I respond to the poems I respond to. As
> > with reason, or Rilke's ladders, such things are forever without ground.
> > All the same, it seems a bit misleading to me, beyond fairly basic mistakes
> > and obvious misinterpretations, to refer to a stable original as the
> > authority to trump the argument. The original is surely susceptible to all
> > these interpretations; it's how each translator reads the poet. In poetry,
> > the aesthetic/stylistic choices are always going to be as crucial as any
> > semantic decisions; I don't see how that can be avoided, or why it would be
> > desirable. The one thing you can't do is make exactly the same poem as
> what
> > is translated; if that were so, all languages would be the same. And they
> > manifestly are not. Given that, you end up with a bunch of different
> > versions, each of which perhaps incline to a slightly differing aspect of
> > the poem; and the rest is up to each individual reader.
> >
> > The kinds of things that particularly grated my ear were phrases like "the
> > body that's loved" (V) as compared with "beloved body" (E) - they seem
> > clumsy and unnecessary locutions which don't affect meaning at all but do
> > affect my reading of the poem in English. I simply don't see how they
> > reflect a "particular sensitivity to some element that exists in the
> > original": it's the kind of English I am always paring out of my prose.
> > That said, it's not that I think Variasis' translations are without merit.
> > I simply preferred the others, as is my right as a reader, and attempted to
> > articulate why.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > A
> >
> > Alison Croggon
> >
> > Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> > Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> > Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|