WP3: The Untranslatble Poems

Poetry, inherently woven with the voice and spirit of its creator, acts as a conduit for cultural expression. Translating poetry transcends the mere conversion of words from one language to another; it involves transporting the soul of a culture, embodying its emotions, history, and ethos. Thus, a translation that fails to capture the essence of the original not only distorts the poem but also risks muting the underlying cultural narratives and historical resonances. Translations that do not honor the integrity and cultural depth of the original work can be more damaging than no translation at all because the translation of poetry is not just a linguistic challenge but also an act of cultural reclamation and empowerment.

“Faithfulness, Expressiveness, and Elegance” were proposed as three fundamental standards of translation by Yan Fu in the preface of his translated book Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays: “Translation involves three requirements difficult to fulfill: faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance. Being faithful to the original is of great difficulty already. However, even though you succeed in achieving that goal, if the translated one cannot be called coherent writing, it is of no significance.” Despite the criticism over the over-generalization of this century-old theory, it is still widely taught and believed as a good measure of translation. So, I will use it as a basis to develop a more comprehensive theory of translation.

The well-accepted interpretation of “Faithfulness” emphasizes that the significance of the original text should closely align with that of the translated text, essentially being true to the original meaning. My interpretation is that this fidelity extends beyond mere lexical accuracy to encompass the preservation of the poem’s essence, spirit, and emotional resonance. It involves capturing not only the explicit meaning of the words but also the underlying nuances, cultural references, and emotional depth embedded within the text. My evidence comes from the faithful translation of the character “信” (faithfulness) because its translation to “faithfulness” itself is not a very faithful one, as the original meaning of “信” encompasses the concept of “trust”. This “trust” relationship is usually overlooked between the original writer and the translator, as the original writer trusts the translator to understand the writing and faithfully convert it to another language. With this trust comes great power of interpretation. For example, in courts or churches, although legal statutes and religious scriptures are immutable, the power to interpret these acknowledged truths rests in the hands of judges, lawyers, priests, and monks. Even within the same language, this power has the capability to alter facts. Moreover, when readers are completely unable to read and understand the original text, translators and interpreters have even greater and more expansive opportunities to exercise their power. In the field of news, there are frequent reports of mainstream media serving political agendas, which may involve incorrect translations or interpretations of foreign reports, potentially distorting the facts. In literature, there have also been instances where translators impose their own interpretations and viewpoints onto the translation, going beyond the original intent of the author. Intentional misinterpretation is not difficult because it is not uncommon for a small diction choice of similar meaning can change the tone and emotion of a piece of writing. These translations fail the account for faithfulness and betray the trust of the original writer.

“Expressiveness” suggested that the translated text ought to be understandable and logically structured, allowing for rearrangement and elaboration to adhere to the grammatical norms of the target language, rather than strictly mirroring the word order and sentence structure of the source language. Confucius believed that expressiveness is the most important aspect of language. Expressiveness is especially important when translating across language families as most sentences need to be restructured to make sense: from Mandarin of the Sino-Tibetan Language Family to English of the Indo-European language family, sentences translated directly will impose a great challenge on the readers if they don’t lose their entire meaning. The all-time best seller and most translated book, the Bible, is very difficult to read in Chinese because although all the necessary linguistic elements are fully presented, word choice is stiff and the sentence structure is clunky. This situation is likely because, in religious translation, faithfulness is so important that the translating entity cannot afford the consequences of an unfaithful translation, thus sacrificing expressiveness. However, this sacrifice is also detrimental to the reading experience, as it causes confusion and difficulty in understanding.

“Elegance” refers to the aesthetic quality of the poem, which involves recreating the stylistic elements of the original poem in such a way that the translated version also reads beautifully and naturally in the target language. However, elegance is often elusive because, in most cases, it is simply unachievable, especially for poetry. Most ancient Chinese poems follow a specific format and rhyming scheme; Tang poems usually consist of quatrains or octaves, with lines of either five or seven characters; Song lyrics are even more stringent, with each poem conforming to a particular ‘ci’ pattern that dictates the number of characters per line and requires specific tonal patterns for every specific character. The most cherished Chinese classics are appreciated not only for conveying significant personal thoughts but also for their strict adherence to form and the beauty of their language. Among all the poems I have read, few translations have felt close to the original’s stature.

One great example to illustrate these standards is the analysis of “满江红” (full river red), a masterpiece of literary and historical significance written by Yue Fei (1103–1142). The first part of the poem expresses the author’s sorrow over the fall of Central Plains and his regret over wasted efforts, conveying his determination to strive for achievements in his prime. The second part reflects the author’s deep hatred for national enemies, his fervent wish for national unity, and his loyal heart toward the throne. The entire poem is emotionally charged and heroically spirited, showing righteous indignation and the heroic stature of the author, displaying his confidence in serving the country and his optimistic and spirited attitude. Here are three translations of the same piece with different emphases.

Man Jiang Hong Caligraphy written by Mao Zedong

In the translation of poetry, these three concepts are indispensable yet can rarely all be achieved at once. In legal documents and contracts, a translator might disregard elegance to focus on faithfulness, but the essence of poetry lies in the beauty of its words. As I mentioned in my conversation with Eric, this represents a significant sorrow and helplessness for translators, as we are always faced with this trade-off. If we focus solely on faithfulness, translating poetry as if we were merely looking up words in a dictionary, then our work becomes indistinguishable from that of translation software or AI; if we focus on expressiveness, even if the readers are satisfied, we lose the content we wanted to express. If we focus on elegance, perhaps we should not be translating but rather engaging in original creative writing.

The standards and tradeoffs discussed earlier might guide general writing, but poetry isn’t just ordinary text; it communicates profound messages through its art form. Thus, sacrificing any one aspect in the translation of poetry represents a substantial loss. Many describe the translator’s role as bridging the significant gap between author and reader, acting as a tie that binds them. This metaphor is quite fitting. However, at times, the gap between author and reader — caused by differences in culture, geography, history, or other factors — can be vast, and the tie we provide is too short. If we force ourselves to stretch this tie between the author and the reader, envision the scenario: the author, pulled by the tie, loses faithfulness, unable to preserve his full voice and perspective; the reader, tugged at the other end, loses expressiveness, making the reading experience extremely challenging; and we, the tie, are stretched thin, struggling to produce an elegant translation that satisfies us internally. Does such a translation truly hold value? Due to these irreconcilable tradeoffs among faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance, I hold a pessimistic view toward the translation of poetry.

Personally, as someone who cherishes poetry and the beauty of language, I’ve witnessed how translations can render a majestic work mediocre, or even subpar. This dilution not only pains those who appreciate the linguistic art but also poses a more insidious risk when viewed from a cultural perspective. As I’ve accumulated experience in translation, I’ve gradually realized that these three concepts — faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance — correspond to the power of the three stakeholders involved in translation. The faithfulness of a translation represents the power of the original author; the stronger the author’s power, the more faithful the translation will be, as evident in the case of the Bible. Expressiveness represents the power of the readers; if we want the readers to have a smoother reading experience, like in a cover letter, more attention is paid to the fluency and appropriateness of the sentences. Meanwhile, the elegance of a translation represents the power of the translator, giving the translator an opportunity to showcase their literary skill and understanding of lingual beauty. When the power is out of balance, poorly executed translation not only diminishes the work itself but also significantly undermines the appreciation of the source culture. Such translations hinder readers from fully grasping and valuing the richness of another culture’s literary heritage, distorting the text and the cultural image it intends to convey.

This distortion of cultural narratives aligns with Paulo Freire’s analysis in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” which argues that every act of communication, including translation, should challenge oppressive norms to foster critical awareness. Freire points out how communication can transform societies and highlights the role of translation as a potential tool for either cultural empowerment or oppression. In the context of translation, this dynamic often manifests as cultural invasion, where dominant cultures impose their interpretations and biases onto the works of less dominant cultures, leading to a form of cultural oppression. Freire also emphasizes the concept of “cultural synthesis” as an antidote to cultural invasion. This involves respecting and integrating the cultural elements of both the source and the target, which promotes mutual understanding and coexistence rather than domination. Unfortunately, in many translations, especially from marginalized or less dominant cultures into the languages of more dominant ones, there is a risk of the translator, intentionally or not, perpetuating the dominance of their own cultural perspectives. This not only misrepresents the original text but also diminishes its cultural identity, reinforcing stereotypes and perpetuating cultural hierarchies.

Thus, the act of translating becomes not just a linguistic task but a significant cultural responsibility. Translators need to navigate these power dynamics carefully, striving to bridge cultures in a way that enhances mutual understanding and appreciation across societies. This approach aligns with Freire’s vision of communication as a liberating practice, emphasizing the translator’s role as a mediator who can either perpetuate cultural oppression or contribute to a dialogue of liberation and respect, which transcends the artistic beauty of poems.

All I’ve discussed aim to highlight a simple but often overlooked truth:

no translation of a poem is better than a bad translation.

Instead of settling for translations that are unfaithful, inexpressive, and inelegant, I argue that certain poems should remain exclusively in their original languages.

Critics might contend that this stance hinders cultural exchange and dissemination because, as mentioned earlier, achieving a “good translation” is exceedingly difficult. However, I believe that we can significantly improve translation quality through strategic advancements on both cognitive and technical levels.

On the cognitive level, a collaborative effort between authors, translators, and readers is essential. Authors should be mindful of potential cross-language audiences while preserving their unique style, cultural nuances, and linguistic aesthetics. If possible, authors translating their own works or writing in multiple languages could minimize misinterpretations. Translators need to recognize their role as both linguistic and cultural bridges, carefully balancing the three standards and three powers associated with the three parties. This ability to balance effectively arises from a profound command of both languages and a deep, unbiased understanding of the cultures involved. Also, direct communication with original writers and potential readers and getting their opinions helps the process. Readers, too, should be conscious of the inherent differences between original texts and their translations. They are encouraged to engage critically with the translated material, appreciating the voice jointly expressed by the writer and translator, and understanding the fact of the unavoidable loss of linguistic beauty during translation.

On the technical level, if it’s hard to find a perfect translation with the traditional approach, there are different techniques translators could utilize to help with the process.

One valuable method is the creation of annotated translations. This technique retains the original text, accompanying it with annotations that offer cultural, historical, and contextual insights. With digital technology, we can fit as much information as we want on one page with hyperlinks. These notes serve strengthen the “tie of translator” by simply providing more relevant information. Annotations can illuminate obscure cultural references or explain why certain translation choices were made, enhancing the reader’s understanding and appreciation of the poem. Presenting multilingual editions, where the original and translated texts are laid out side by side, is another effective strategy. This format allows readers to compare the original with the translation directly, deepening their engagement with the poet’s stylistic and linguistic decisions. Such editions empower readers to explore the text more fully, making personal connections and interpretations. This reduces the translator’s interpretative dominance, fosters a more democratic interaction with the text. It is a vivid example of cultural synthesis, where equal weight is given to both the source and target texts, and encourages a richer, more participatory experience. Also, depending on the special circumstances and the purpose of the translation, translators can lean towards one aspect of the original piece. If the focus of a poem is on expressing emotions or depicting specific scenes, we can use the form of transcreation to attempt to recreate the original work. Transcreation allows translators to capture the spirit and emotional depth of the original and “rewrite” creatively to resonate with the target audience’s cultural and linguistic context. If the poem primarily conveys specific messages, we might choose a more generalized approach instead of sticking rigidly to certain textual expressions to prevent readers from becoming confused by the details and missing the overall message.

Sources

1. Yue Fei, Man Jiang Hong, January 1142
2. “Translation Technique”, last modified 2021, https://www.en84.com/14101.html/2
3. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, translated by Myra Bergman Ramos (New York: Continuum, 1970).
4. Tan Zaixi, “Similarity between Chinese and Western Translation Theory,” Chinese Translation 1999, no. 6 (1999): 25–28.
5. Wang Kefei, “An Analysis of the Strategies for Translating Chinese Poetic Literature into English,” Journal of Translation Studies 2005, no. 2 (2005): 34–53.
6. Kearry Qian, “The Untranslatable Poems,” Medium, last modified February 2, 2024, https://kearryqian.medium.com/wp1-the-untranslatable-poems-bd4f7760c3d5.
7. Kearry Qian, “Perspectives and Challenges,” Medium, last modified March 15, 2023, https://kearryqian.medium.com/wp2-perspectives-and-challenges-cf04cbe105c5.
8. Xiaoping Tang, “Studies on Yan Fu’s Translation Thoughts ‘Faithfulness, Expressiveness, and Elegance’,” in Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 329, edited by ICCESSH, 1047–1049. Shanghai: Shanghai Industrial & Commercial Polytechnic, 2019.