The potential of translation in poetry

In a globalized world, we encounter countless beautiful poems in the many languages of the world from a young age. However, since most people are unable to speak every language in the world, we are left with no choice but to rely on translations. One of these poems is „Azaleas (진달래꽃)“ by Kim So-wŏl. It is a Korean poem, that was first published in 1922, however is was published many times again afterwards. Just like the poem has been published many times, there are many different translations of this poem. It is important however, to see these translations not as an attempt to recreate the poem exactly but as a form of ‚deformation‘ and reinterpretation of the poem.

Firstly, what exactly is „deformation“? In order to understand why translation of a poem should not be seen as a reproduction but a reinterpretation through ‚deformance‘ or ‚deformation‘, it is necessary to first define what ‚deformation‘ is. Stephen Ramsay uses the following passages in his work „Potential Readings“ to clarify this:

„Jerome McGann and Lisa Samuels refer to such procedures as instances of „deformance“ – a word that usefully combines a number of terms, including „form“, „deform“, and „performance“. “ ¹

„In one sense, deformation is the only rational response to complexity. Nearly all deformative procedures (which include outline, paraphrase, translation, and even genre description) are intended to alleviate some difficulty (…). All textual entities allow for deformation, and given that interpretation occurs amid a textual field that is by nature complex, polysemic, and multi-referential, one might say that most entities require it. Seen in this light, deformation is simply a part of our permanent capacity for sense-making.“ ²

In summary, deformance or deformation describes a way of trying to make sense of something by working with it or changing it in a way. In my opinion, the effects and potentials of deformance are better shown than just explained, so in the following passage, I want to examine the different translations a.k.a. deformations of Kim So-wŏl’s „Azaleas“.

Having examined seven different versions of Kim So-wŏl’s „Azaleas“, we were able to gain a deep understanding of the text. We can see how each version gives a different insight on the translators perspective of the poem and the mindset of the speaker. This is by no means a bad thing, however it is something to keep in mind when looking at a translation. Not everyone can understand the original and compare it to the translation since most of the time, if someone is looking at a translation of something it is because they are unable to speak the language of the original version.

But if translation is deformance and not a recreation but a reinterpretation of the poem, isn’t something lost along the way? Should we in turn, disregard these translations as an option to understand the poem? Should Brother Anthony not have made use of the freedom of translating the poem in a way that he thinks suits the original or the way the original made him feel?

„By one definition of the term, “deformation” suggests nothing more than the basic textual maneuvers by which form gives way to form – the “de” functioning not as a private, but as relatively straightforward signifier of change. But any reading that undertakes such changes (as all reading must) remains threatened with the possibility that deformation signals loss, corruption, and illegitimacy. Even now, in our poststructuralist age, we speak of “faithfulness” to a text, of “flawed” or “misguided” readings, but any marking of a text, any statement that is not a re-performance of a statement, must break faith with the ability of the text to mean and re-guide form into alternative intelligibilities.“ ⁴

In other words, anything that isn’t re-performance (as in exactly quoting the original), is changing the text and possibly changing the meaning of the text. In this way, anything that isn’t re-performance can be seen as deformance. In the same way, we don’t expect a summary to be the exact text it is summarizing, we shouldn’t expect a translation to give an exact version of the original. After all, if you are expecting an expectation and someone gives you the original but in quotation marks, that won’t be beneficial to what you are trying to achieve (which is probably being able to understand the words of them poem in your own language or in one that you can understand at least).

„The minute someone proposes to explain the meaning of a narrative – to speculate, conjecture, extrapolate, or shout abuse at it, whether in the privacy of one’s thought or in a critical journal – the narrative changes, because we are no longer able to read it without knowledge of the paratextual revolt.“ ⁵

Various translations offer various degrees of understanding and forces the reader to interact with the poem in different ways. The most interactive translation probably being the first one, as just by looking at it, it doesn’t make that much sense. As a result, as stated above, we as a reader are even more forced to interpret (a.k.a. deform) the poem even more ourselves.

„An alternative exercise to this, one which is sometimes done in Korea, is to collect a number of translations made over the years by more or less reputed translators, Korean and foreign, put them side by side, and smile knowingly as you list the ‚errors‘. I believe that this sport ought to be called „translator-bashing“. The immense difficulty (utter impossibility) of finding adequate „equivalents“ for Korean words and structures leaves everything we do wide open to challenge.“ – Brother Anthony ⁶

Instead of looking at the differences as ‚errors‘, they should be viewed simply as a different viewpoint. Imagine going up Namsan Tower and looking over Seoul and going up Lotte Tower and looking over Seoul or Bukag Skyway, Nakseon Park etc. The view changes but the city remains the same and there is no single right angle to look at the city of Seoul. Just like there is no single right way to look at „Azaleas“.

„In the end, the translator can only produce something that seems a fairly valid representation in another language of at least the surface sense of a Korean work and hope that readers in the outside world may hear some faint echo of beautiful tunes from a distant, tragically divided land.“ – Brother Anthony

If we don’t hold translations to the unattainable standard of reproducing a poem but as a reinterpretation and we don’t take them as written in stone and the version we’re looking at as the one and only valid „true“, „correct“ version, it opens it up to a much bigger room for interpretation. Looking at different translations too is another way to broaden your perspective. In this sense, we could also say that translators become poets themselves since we are looking at their works as a somewhat individual piece of art.