What is poetry translation?

There are many who translate poetry today, yet they vary greatly in their translation styles, and the results are perhaps even more variegated than the translators, even for the same poems. A cynic might say that these people are looking to stand out, to make their mark, and if they have to run roughshod all over the original, it doesn’t matter. I prefer to think that they are simply coming from different places and hold different opinions or beliefs on translation. Of course, a part of the differences may be up to translator error. So, what constitutes an error, what constitutes a conscious choice, and what is a poetry translation?

Arthur Schopenhauer famously said that “Poetry cannot be translated.” In fact, many have shared his view over the years. If economics is the dismal science, then poetry translation may well be the downright pessimistic science. In my own experience, he is largely correct; poetry can perhaps never be rendered perfectly in another language. When I get close, it feels like part luck and part skill. For instance, a rhyme that just happens to exist in English, and I found it. Still, rhymes are only one layer to the onion. Vladimir Nobokov wanted “copious footnotes,” and not the “emasculation and padding” of “. . . poetical versions, begrimed and beslimed by rhyme.” I agree with and share this want for myself, but it may not be a method that works for all audiences. Some audiences read poetry to study history, some read it to study the author, some read it to feel something, and some read it to dream. The real question is whether the kinds of poetry tailored to these audiences should all be considered translations, or whether some of them are, well, other things. Transcreations, adaptations, localizations—take your pick.

I come down on the side of fire and brimstone. Conservatism in defining translation. Just like a biblical translator would, I take the original document as the word of God. The best policy when you want to change something is to consult the author. Barring that, no can do. Any activities like paying attention to cultural sensitivity, adding in new content to make rhymes that snap, etc., are, to me, outside the scope of translation (though perhaps ultimately useful and necessary to a particular client).

A natural corollary to this is that translations should be nearly one-to-one. That is, there ought to be some quantifiable and acceptable band of liberty a translator can take, outside which the text can no longer be considered a translation, strictly speaking. And translators should be tasked with self-reporting if their work is a translation or another endeavor. After all, there is nothing stopping translators from writing their own stories. Be creative as you will. Just not on the page that is supposed to contain the words, thoughts, and stories of another author, merely transposed into another language. Put that way, it seems that translators taking excessive liberties could be diagnosed with “main character syndrome” (read: excessive self-importance).