06-17-2016, 07:40 AM
Poets might make for better translators if they have no dog in the race, which I think would be uncommon. So instead of finding the form that best works with the translation, they may try and shoehorn the poem into a preferential one and this shoehorning extends to the critiquing. One must critique the poem before one can translate the poem. The poet-translator may find himself valuing one aspect in the poem above another and so highlights that (unconsciously) in the translation. The bottom line is that a poet will bring certain poetic bigotry to the translation, so while one may get a more smooth or lyrical translation with the poet, there are also pit falls with the poet. So, one is not a better translator of poetry simply by dent of being a poet. That said, the poet does have the inherent talent to be the better translator. Probably one of the best examples currently is Coleman Barks "Rumi" translations.
Had he not started every line capped, I think I could like Snodgrass' translation very well, the rest are pretty bad. Some, in trying to be poetic, lose the poetry.
dale
Had he not started every line capped, I think I could like Snodgrass' translation very well, the rest are pretty bad. Some, in trying to be poetic, lose the poetry.
dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.

