Translating poetry/ poetic language : a justifiable crime!!

[caddy_caddy]

Have you ever had the experience to read Hugo or Beaudlaire 's poetry in French then in English ?!
Have you ever had the experience to read Madame Bovary in French then in English ?!
Have you ever had the experience to read Hamlet in English then in Arabic ?!
Have you ever had the experience to read Mahmoud Darwish's poetry in Arabic then in English ?!
Well, indeed if you have had this experience you'll feel that it's a crime against the author and the text. Flaubert used to read the passages aloud when writing to see how do they flow. He cared too much about the musical impact of the words while composing the novel. The Arabic version of Hamlet is a rubbish , it could be anything except a Shakespearean text!! I said to myself when I read the first pages " thx God Shakespeare died long time ago and didn't see what they did to his play. Hamlet is not the plot and events. It's the Shakespearean language that you cannot create an equivalent to it when translating.
Mahmoud Darwish is not a star in poetry . He is " one Galaxy that stands by its own in the cosmos". when I read some of his poems in English I wanted to cry . Definitely,this not Mahmoud Darwish!!!
I really hate translating and don't know how they dare to translate poetry. Is it really neccessary to translate ?!!! Most of Derrida's book are untranslatble and we have no right to translate if we''' do harm to his ideas. An old Arabic author' Aljahez" said once " Poetry must not be translated because it looses the ,,,,";) I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TRANSLATE THE WORD HE USED IN A PROPER WAY .

so, what do you think?

[JCamilo]

No, Caddy, Baudelaire himself was an apt translator. His versions of Poe are great responsable for Poe lasting influence outside America. Some may argue, Baudelaire translation is superior to the original. You have good and bad translators, sometimes a translation can be even better or as good as the original. They change, but they add life to the poem.

If you say Poetry cannot be translated you are saying Poetry are the words, not the feeling. If poetry is the feeling, then it is not translated, only the words. But the feeling can exist in another language, so why not?

You are right, iti s not Mahoud Darwish. It is someone else. If we accept it naturally, then you can think: "bad", just like you would do with an orginal work.

[caddy_caddy]

yeh, you're right with respect to Beaublaire but this is not always the case.Ben Jonson translation of the Aeineid fascinated me .Unless you're a poet you cannot translate poetry. Unfortunately, most of the translators transform poetry into prose to preserve the content. But I don't agree that in poetry you can abstract the content from the form. What does matter is not the feeling itself but how does the poet give shape to that feeling and in which way. And here language is very important. Arabic for instance allows you to shape words and sentences in a way that English does not allow you to do so and vice versa . The play of sounds, the length of words and sentences , the distribution of the lines and sentences , all these are part in evoking the feeling . In prose you can evoke feelings, too.

[DocHeart]

I've always thought of literary translation as an art in itself, and I've read translations of works that had me in total awe.

Vassilis Rotas translated Shakespeare into Greek keeping all rhyme schemes and of course the iambic pentameter firmly in place. I compared random translated texts to the original: there isn't one line that has a different meaning to the original -- no, there isn't a single word that is out of place, inserted or modified by the translator to fit his purpose. To me, Rotas is one of the reasons I love literature.

Translation in general: the translator takes a piece of work that was created for one world (where a certain language is spoken) and makes it accessible to another world, one with its own language and culture. Translators are real heroes.

[caddy_caddy]

I've always thought of literary translation as an art in itself, and I've read translations of works that had me in total awe.

Vassilis Rotas translated Shakespeare into Greek keeping all rhyme schemes and of course the iambic pentameter firmly in place. I compared random translated texts to the original: there isn't one line that has a different meaning to the original -- no, there isn't a single word that is out of place, inserted or modified by the translator to fit his purpose. To me, Rotas is one of the reasons I love literature.

Translation in general: the translator takes a piece of work that was created for one world (where a certain language is spoken) and makes it accessible to another world, one with its own language and culture. Translators are real heroes.

English and Greek have the same etymological roots and close to each other. What if you wanna translate Shakespeare into Chinese or Arabic ? What about the aesthetic qualities of a text ? Should we sacrifice aesthetics to make things accessible to others ?

[Charles Darnay]

English and Greek have the same etymological roots and close to each other.


No......they are not.

I second the notion that translation is an art. It can be done incredibly well or terribly - not because of the original language or the chosen language, but because of the translator's understanding of the work and the language, and what he/she tries to capture in his/her translation.

As for having to be a poet to translate poetry - maybe. I don't think you have to produce your own original work, but rather have a deep understanding of poetry and by translating poetry, become a poet yourself.

As for texts like The Aeneid, or Iliad, or Odyssey: your suggestion that the poetic form is inextricably tied to content does not quite hold up. Meter was not used for aesthetic reasons, but to help the poet (who orally recited these poems) remember the lines better. The syntax of Ancient Greek and Latin do not allow for comfortable line by line translations into English, so poets like Ben Jonson pretty much re-wrote the text, straying from the original far too far at points (though there are some interesting parts to his text) - while prose translators like Fagels captured the spirit of the poem in prose.

[caddy_caddy]

No......they are not.

English and Latin ? But we came across many words that are originally Greek and they use them in English .


I second the notion that translation is an art. It can be done incredibly well or terribly - not because of the original language or the chosen language, but because of the translator's understanding of the work and the language, and what he/she tries to capture in his/her translation.

Remember that I'm speaking specificaly about poetry / and poetic language.
You arised here a very important point : the understanding of the translator of the poem and his translation according to waht he understands
Do you think , in poetry , you can have a clear understanding of the poem ?

As for having to be a poet to translate poetry - maybe. I don't think you have to produce your own original work, but rather have a deep understanding of poetry and by translating poetry, become a poet yourself.

Poets are born not made.




As for texts like The Aeneid, or Iliad, or Odyssey: your suggestion that the poetic form is inextricably tied to content does not quite hold up. Meter was not used for aesthetic reasons, but to help the poet (who orally recited these poems) remember the lines better. The syntax of Ancient Greek and Latin do not allow for comfortable line by line translations into English, so poets like Ben Jonson pretty much re-wrote the text, straying from the original far too far at points (though there are some interesting parts to his text) - while prose translators like Fagels captured the spirit of the poem in prose.

Yeh,that 's the main point I objected on . They transform poetry into prose to capture " what you call the spirit of the piece " .If the poet cared only about the " spirit " , he would have written it in prose . Why to write it in poetry ??!! That would be much easier for him. ?? And we don't read poetry just for the spirit . We read poetry to enjoy it aesthetically. Why should I bother myself with the Shakesperean language then? I can go and read a summary in prose that captures " the spirit " of his plays ?!!!


This is an example of my favorite song by the Lebanese Soprano Hiba Alkawas.
the title of the poem is : Being you , Being me !
This is an artificial structure in English. In Arabic we can add the pronoun to the verb "to be" and make a very eloquent "one word "out of it. IT'S " akounaka " and " takounani"
one word creates a real feeling of unity ; they are melting one into another meanwhile in English they remain two seperate words, two distinct spirits though the meaning reveals that they are one. You see how the structure of the words themselves affect the feeling evoked ?

[mortalterror]

Good translators preserve the sense and feeling of a poem, and on rare occasions improve it.

[Charles Darnay]

To reiterate: Homer and Vergil used poetry to assist with memory. Hearing these works read aloud, you might not even be able to tell the difference between poetry and prose.

Shakespeare and Milton on the other hand use poetry and meter for aesthetic purposes. Shakespeare inlays meaning and sometimes humour into his meter. Therefore, such poets would not work in prose - and are very rarely translated into prose.

[caddy_caddy]

That means you're reducing poetry only to sense and feeling.
I write poetry and fiction in Arabic. But I don't dare to translate my poems to English because it's not only sense and feeling!!
I don't care only about the sense and feeling and I am not willing to transform a piece of art into sth else just to be published and read by an audience. If it comes naturally in English , it's ok ; but if I write it originally in Arabic , whatever I try , aesthetically, it won't be the same as my original work. Art is about beauty . Preserving beauty is more important than sense and feeling.

[caddy_caddy]

To reiterate: Homer and Vergil used poetry to assist with memory. Hearing these works read aloud, you might not even be able to tell the difference between poetry and prose

Come on !! for memory only !!

[kelby_lake]

Some of the translations are quite inventive, although in some languages like French, you could just leave it the way it is and people will still understand it.

[miyako73]

If Le scaphandre et le papillon is as good, if not better, as The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, then its author, not the translator, who was good. That book has continued to mesmerize me even though it has been almost two weeks now since I read it.

[JCamilo]

Discussing if only a poet can translate poetry is pointless. Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet. So, yes, only poets translate poetry. If he will continue writting poetry or wrote before, it is irrelevant.

Now, how can be argued that a translation must preserve the form if the language is a form? You are obviously breaking the form at some level. But, yes, it is another poem, translation is a creative process.

As being art and art must be preserved. True, but art is not solid, static. It is fluid, it is preserved and lost.

As for prose-poetry, they are not opposite or exclusive. Aforementioned Flaubert is a prose writer. So, I would not argue beyond it. Poetry here is the use of the language, not the form, right?

And finally, many poems produce the same feeling, not necessarily being the same poems. Why wouldnt be possible to produce the same feelings in different languages if it is possible to achive with different words? A rose by another name... But basically, even if you translate your poems from arabic to english, it is another poem. Another work. They have ties, but they are not the same. Do not be much clutched to the physical aspet of a work. What survives is the ephemeral. We all know homer. We barelly know his greek.

[MorpheusSandman]

Translation is a necessary evil, and I tend to find the old saying is true: translations are like women; if they're beautiful, they're not faithful, and if they're faithful, they're not beautiful. Perhaps that's not always true, but the presence and import of form and other aesthetic considerations, like the music of language, have always been an integral aspect of poetry. Homer and Virgil may have used meter to aid in memorization (this is certainly true of Homer, but less so for Virgil who was mostly writing for the literate elite), but this isn't to say that they didn't also use meter and sound aesthetically. Virgil was certainly conscious to the effects of meter, especially well-placed spondaic substitutions, as well as to the various effects of syntax. One could say that Milton's great accomplishment was finding equivalents in English for what Virgil had done in Latin, and there are numerous formal parallels between Paradise Lost and The Aeneid.

For me, good translations are those that preserve as much of the original meaning and form as possible. Translation as an art is essentially one of choice, of constantly choosing what master to serve (Meaning? Rhythm? Sound? Syntax? Line Breaks?) when they all can't be served simultaneously. I think being a good translator requires being both an expert on the original text, being aware of as many of the elements that make it what it is, and then being an expert on how to find linguistic and formal equivalents for those elements in your own language. FWIW, I can't stand when verse is translated into prose. All poetry makes use of at least line-breaks as a formal device, and there is no such thing as poetry that doesn't (prose poetry is an oxymoron). I'm also uncomfortable ever saying that translation captures "the spirit" of the original, because who's to say what that "spirit" is? Who's to say what makes any work of poetry so unique as a work of art? Different readers look for different things, and while some may prize meaning above all else, there are also those that feel like verse form is an essential aspect of the experience of reading poetry that separates it from other literature. For someone like me, no prose translation of poetry captures the "spirit," ie, the feeling I get from reading metrical poetry, or even poetry with line breaks. That's not to say that everyone that disagrees with me is wrong, but simply that there is no one "spirit" of any work of art, much less great ones.

[JBI]

Good translators preserve the sense and feeling of a poem, and on rare occasions improve it.

More like good translations are good poetry that preserve a sense of the "spirit" of the original. Yet the best translators are poets in their own right, not merely translators. There is never an "invisible translator", especially for poetry.

[caddy_caddy]

Some of the translations are quite inventive, although in some languages like French, you could just leave it the way it is and people will still understand it.


Yes, a good translator must be "inventive", especially when he is dealing with two languages that are completely different .
Knowing the language itself is not enough . That's why I say that only poets or at least who has a poetic sense can deal with poetry.

[caddy_caddy]

If Le scaphandre et le papillon is as good, if not better, as The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, then its author, not the translator, who was good. That book has continued to mesmerize me even though it has been almost two weeks now since I read it.

I don't think the reader pays too much attention to the fact that it is a translated book. They don't say this is the translator, they say this is the author and the book itself. So, their evaluation of the author or the book might not be really fair.

[caddy_caddy]

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Discussing if only a poet can translate poetry is pointless. Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet. So, yes, only poets translate poetry. If he will continue writting poetry or wrote before, it is irrelevant.
I think it's the opposite.






Now, how can be argued that a translation must preserve the form if the language is a form? You are obviously breaking the form at some level. But, yes, it is another poem, translation is a creative process.

yeh, they are changing everything, breaking everything ; It's indeed another poem , another thing, yet they call it but its orginal name and orginal author!!


As being art and art must be preserved. True, but art is not solid, static. It is fluid, it is preserved and lost.

As for prose-poetry, they are not opposite or exclusive. Aforementioned Flaubert is a prose writer. So, I would not argue beyond it. Poetry here is the use of the language, not the form, right?

Yes, and that's why I mentionned both poetry and poetic language in the title of the thread. You can have a poetic language in a narrative. But that does not make the narrative a poem.


And finally, many poems produce the same feeling, not necessarily being the same poems. Why wouldnt be possible to produce the same feelings in different languages if it is possible to achive with different words? A rose by another name... But basically, even if you translate your poems from arabic to english, it is another poem. Another work. They have ties, but they are not the same. Do not be much clutched to the physical aspet of a work. What survives is the ephemeral. We all know homer. We barelly know his greek.

Again You're reducing poetry to sense and feeling. All human beings share the same feelings of loss, death , love, alienation, etc, only with variation in degree and emphasis. you can find one millions poem on death , but what differentiates one poem from another is not the feeling of death , but that each poem evokes that feeling in a specific way. Here lies the originality of the poem and the work of art . In the " how , not in the " what ".

What you call ties between the original poem and the translated poem might me the fancy of the translator himself . Who could tell that what does the poet mean by his poem ? How could you rely on the translator's understanding of the poem? Does a poem really mean sth apart from its form?Do we have really a meaning in poetry that could be translated ?

[JCamilo]

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Discussing if only a poet can translate poetry is pointless. Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet. So, yes, only poets translate poetry. If he will continue writting poetry or wrote before, it is irrelevant.
I think it's the opposite.

Sorry, Caddy, I just cannot follow your color system. Forgive me :D

How it is the oposite? If someone translate a poem and afterwards dies, no longer translating, the fact he will not be making more translations invalidate his work? And Elizabeth Barrett earlier works included The Batle of Marathon, would matters if she didnt anything before?







Now, how can be argued that a translation must preserve the form if the language is a form? You are obviously breaking the form at some level. But, yes, it is another poem, translation is a creative process.

yeh, they are changing everything, breaking everything ; It's indeed another poem , another thing, yet they call it but its orginal name and orginal author!!


Yes, they are saying their creation is based on another creation. That is all.



Again You're reducing poetry to sense and feeling. All human beings share the same feelings of loss, death , love, alienation, etc, only with variation in degree and emphasis. you can find one millions poem on death , but what differentiates one poem from another is not the feeling of death , but that each poem evokes that feeling in a specific way. Here lies the originality of the poem and the work of art . In the " how , not in the " what ".

I am not reducing. I assume that the form is meant to be changed. It is a hopeless battle to preserve it perfectly. The experience then, it is impossible. So, what a translation, any, can do is be faithful to the feeling and the form only as possible.


What you call ties between the original poem and the translated poem might me the fancy of the translator himself . Who could tell that what does the poet mean by his poem ? How could you rely on the translator's understanding of the poem? Does a poem really mean sth apart from its form?Do we have really a meaning in poetry that could be translated ?

You cannot assume anything about anyone experience with a text. You can just do your own betrayal.

[caddy_caddy]

Sorry , I had a problem with the connection so I posted very quickly .
I mean the opposite with respect to this statement "Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet." Who is the person qualified to translate poetry? In the academy they teach you languages only. My sister lives in the states and she's getting a degree in translation. The one who is labeled as a translator and has a degree is not necesseraly someone who has the talent to translate poetry. This is a talent not a skill you can acquire.


yes , we know it's an act of betrayal . But why we justify it?
Do we have right to forge a painting or change anything in it ?
Why do we deal with a painting with such a reverence ; a painting is almost sth sacred to us ?!
What's the difference between a painting and a poem ?
Dali's language in painting in inaccessible to some for instance ,do I have right to change his paintings to make them accessible to those who don't understand Dali ?The hell with you whether you understand or not . Dali is Dali .
Poetry is no less sacred than painting . Why do we deal with two pieces of art with different ways ?!! That's what I really fail to understand!!

[JCamilo]

Sorry , I had a problem with the connection so I posted very quickly .
I mean the opposite with respect to this statement "Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet." Who is the person qualified to translate poetry? In the academy they teach you languages only. My sister lives in the states and she's getting a degree in translation. The one who is labeled as a translator and has a degree is not necesseraly someone who has the talent to translate poetry. This is a talent not a skill you can acquire.

It is both. All poets had to develop their skill in a way or another. Does not matter much where they studied, but at some point, they did. Anyways, a Poet is someone who writes poetry, right? Since we agree that when you translate a poem, you are writting a new poem, then writing poetry, how come the translator isnt a poet?



yes , we know it's an act of betrayal . But why we justify it?

Because all art is a betrayal of the creation. There is nothing in art that isnt a copy of something. So, a translation is just a copy of a copy, Judas stabbing himself.


Do we have right to forge a painting or change anything in it ?

Well, not talking about legal rights, but we do forge, copy, change paintings for a long time.


Why do we deal with a painting with such a reverence ; a painting is almost sth sacred to us ?!

Are them? We do have several holy texts as the bible or the holy quran, but how many holy paintings? When an image is considered a relic, such the shroud of turim, it is not even considered a painting or an artwork. In fact, some religions deal with imagens as something almost profane. No, I think you are confuding the way we threat paintings... In the past, a master of painting was more one that could copy former masters than create something original.


What's the difference between a painting and a poem ?

I know this is a rethorical question, but historically the capacity to write/read was always threated with more reverence than the capacity to paint. It is the language of law, science, philosophy, religion. It was kept from the general population for quite long.


Dali's language in painting in inaccessible to some for instance ,do I have right to change his paintings to make them accessible to those who don't understand Dali ?The hell with you whether you understand or not . Dali is Dali .

Well, Dali is a good argument about the right to change, copy, modify paintings, right? Anyways, we do copy and change Dali all the time. The original itself is limited to a few viwers, but just seek on internet. And those are copies, not always with the same size, color patterns, etc. This is making Dali more accessible.


Poetry is no less sacred than painting . Why do we deal with two pieces of art with different ways ?!! That's what I really fail to understand!!

It is not poetry vs. painting. It is any individual artwork. Why do we threat Ode to west wind differently than Code Da Vince ? Or the Holy Quran? Because each artwork has its own story, own effect and this does not depends on the object only, or the author, but all public that deals with the object, all artists and artworks that do it - be it a translation, be it a reference - that pretty much keep the artwork alive. Any work of art that is frozen on its own "Originality" is bound to be forgotten as it cannot be representative for the future. Immortality is lost and will not be back in 3 days.

Further, why would we condem to death some artworks because their language was lost?

[Sir Guyon]

Caddy Caddy, I agree strongly in 95-99 percent of translations, however some translations are masterpieces in their own right, such as: the Chapman and Pope translations of Homer, Dryden's Virgil, Fairfax's Tasso, Golding's Ovid, etc.