6 oct. 2007

Belitt for a while (in the sixties) had the only widely available translations of Neruda in book form, the only version of Poeta en Nueva York in print. He was the "leading translator." So the resentment about the quality had to do, possibly, with the fact that the American reader with no Spanish had to go through Belitt to get certain things. To then interpose his own poetic personality in such a case seems an affront, given that a reader may or may not want to have to deal with the "translator's ego" (phrase from Weinberger & Eshleman.) It's making a claim on the reader's attention that would only be justifiable --maybe--if BB were a great poet "in his own right."

2 comentarios:

John dijo...

I don't read Spanish, and I'm curious to know what you think of Eshleman's translations.

If you don't wish to answer, feel free to delete my comment!

Jonathan dijo...

Eshleman chose the hardest possible poet, Vallejo, and worked his whole life getting better and better translations, revising and honing the translations he had already done and studyiing the problematic aspects of the text. Does that mean there is nothing to object to in his translations? No, I might very well have quibbles. But those quibbles would be in the context of a general admiration for what he has done.