Addendum
The Two Lines translation journal is also requesting submissions.
Thanks to Robert Killingsworth for the tip, and for sending me on a cyber journey that led to this, among other things…
P&W: Some would argue that literal translation is the only acceptable way of proceeding without losing the poem.
WM: Literal translation is a necessary fiction. Borges says the idea of literal translation comes from translations of the Bible: “If we think of the infinite intelligence of God undertaking a literary task, then every word, every letter, must have been thought out. It might be blasphemy to tamper with the text written by an endless, eternal intelligence.” Borges found the idea of literal translation distasteful. He liked to imagine a time when “translation will be considered something in itself . . . when men will care for beauty, not for the circumstances of beauty.” Because: A poem is always lost in translation. So the key is finding it again in the language you’re translating into. The whole “literalism and its discontents” kerfuffle can’t be resolved—both sides have their points—but at least it can be anecdotally fun.
An interview that refers as well to a mild obsession of mine, namely, to what degree does biographical knowledge of an author (i.e. “knowledge” of their anti-Semitism, suicide, sexual preferences…) taint a translator’s interpretation of the author’s fiction or verse?
· · • · ·
Comment
- “A poem is always lost in translation. So the key is finding it again in the language you’re translating into.”
One poet/translator who seems to have taken this to heart is W.S. Merwin. I recently heard Merwin attribute his own growth as a poet, above all else, to his ongoing career as a translator.
— Carlos Jul 20, 1:43pm #
commenting closed for this article