Translating Poetry

I really liked the ideas of Pulvers, though there is a bit more to say than just that. With something like poetry, a direct translation doesn’t capture the nuance and atmosphere of the original. That is why I agree with the idea that it is up to the translator to understand both the background of which a poem is written in addition to the text itself, and basically create a new poem in the translated language. This would definitely help create the “vitality” lost in translation. However, it then becomes a conversation about whether this technique is really translation at that point. While you are using source material and trying to convey the same ideas, the words and way of writing is lost because of the nature of poetry and each language.

This relates to the quote mentioned by Beichman, with one’s language being their hometown. To bring something foreign to a hometown, Beichman mentions Sir John Denham, that you must add new spirit to replenish what has been lost. While much of this text is about how impactful this addition of spirit is, doesn’t this also mean that the translation no longer has the full spirit of the original? Perhaps I’m getting stuck on the wrong things, but I just found it interesting that the definition of translation is narrow at some points and wide at others. 

Avi