[New-Poetry] response to crisman on translation

[Alexander Dickow]

Crisman,

"What this exercise demonstrates does not negate what
you're saying--  
it simply shows that there are limitations to
judgments we can make  
about the original poem when hearing it in English."

Sure. And the "Fleurs" example is a good one, and
Rimbaud is indeed tough to translate (although I think
I could find even harder if I thought about it). As a
matter of fact, because of the formal effects of the
original you point to, my approach to translation --
making a new poem that stands alone -- seems to me all
the more justified. The fact is, few who can read an
original will ever bother to read a translation --
unless, that is, they think they're getting something
new or interesting out of the translation that they
*won't* find in the original, which already implies a
fair bit of freedom/invention in said translation. The
literalist approach seems to me self-defeating, and
the Koch Rimbaud text is a perfect example of this: by
being literalist, Koch has managed to lose everything
that's worthwhile about the original! And since few,
other than non-French speakers, would ever read Koch's
translation, who's benefitting from this "crib"?? Not
the translator, who's a drone: not the reader, who
isn't likely to enjoy the translated text that much:
and certainly not Rimbaud. At most, an inexperienced
reader of the original could use the translation as a
crutch (I doubt this is what Koch intended, but you
did say "functionalist" or something, so I dunno): cf.
translations explicitly so-designed, such as Nabokov's
famous Onegin translation. 
Whereas, on the other hand, a free and inventive
translation could have potentially recuperated the
jewel-like profusion of sound in the original, by
departing from literal translation. To get up close,
scoot back.
You're right that we can't judge an original by a
translation -- unless, that is, a translator makes his
approach to texts clear, which many do, and (imo) most
should. But, in the absence of any such information,
it seems to me to make the most sense to not speculate
*at all* about the "original", because this simply
devalues the translation, it seems to me, *unless* we
actually have access to that original and can read
"across". Which is lots of fun and often very
revealing even about the original, as you just
demonstrated.
Am I making sense, or just gibbering like a mad
Francophile? 
Merry xmas,
Alex

www.alexdickow.net/blog/
   
  les mots! ah quel désert à la fin
  merveilleux. -- Henri Droguet