After you have read through the packet of Akhmatova poems, please respond to one of the following two prompts in the comments section of this blog. You need at least 500 words to receive credit. Doesn't it look like these instructions are coming straight from Akhmatova's mouth? Yes, yes it does. So pay attention.
Prompt #1: In her introduction to Twenty Poems, Kenyon writes "Because it is impossible to translate with fidelity to form and image, I have sacrificed form for image. Image embodies feeling, and this embodiment is perhaps the greatest treasure of lyric poetry." Do you agree or disagree? Pick one of the translations by Kenyon in this packet and discuss her use of imagery. What are the images in the poem? Are they symbolic or, as Gumilev proposed with Acmeism, simply literal ("a rose is beautiful in itself, not because it stands for something")? Do the images succeed in the poem, or leave you unsatisfied? Why?
Prompt #2: I have provided you with side-by-side Kenyon and Kunitz translations of "The Guest" and "Heart's Memory of Sun." Pick one of those two poems and explain to me, citing specific words or lines, how two translations of the same poem affect your experience of it. (Do you like one translation over the other? Why?) What do you like/dislike about Kenyon's linguistic choices? Can you trace the reasoning behind the different decisions each translator made?
Remember: you have until noon on Tuesday to post your response -- although the earlier you post, the easier it will be for me to note your comments before class. You are encouraged to agree/disagree with each other as well. Just be respectful, and if you piggyback on someone else's response, don't simply rehash his/her argument (or you won't receive credit).
Finally, I found a video of Akhmatova reading her poem "To the Muse" in 1946. It's only 39 seconds worth of footage, but gives you an idea of what her poems sound like in Russian. You can hear a musicality lacking in the English translations.
Prompt #2:
ReplyDeleteUpon reading the two translations of "Heart's Memory of Sun…," I developed a strong attraction to Kunitz's translation of the poem over Kenyon's translation. In the simplest sense, I felt as if the poem as translated by Kenyon seemed unfinished and lacked strong imagery. In the first stanza, for example, Kenyon utilizes the terms "yellow" and "lightly" to coincide with Kunitz's translation using the terms "sallow" and "scarcely", respectively. To me, "sallow" and "scarcely" contribute more towards establishing a sorrowful mood in the poem while "yellow" and "lightly" are more elementary words that lack strength and do not help readers form meaningful imagery.
Aside from the lack of imagery created by Kenyon's translation, I feel as if Akhmatova's voice was portrayed completely differently by both translations. In Kenyon's translation, Akhmatova appeared to be in the initial stages of her thoughts. She seems to just be listing sentences as they come to her mind without much thought or reflection put into her word choice. The poem comes across more literal and does not encourage me to look for deeper meaning within her words. Kenyon's translation of the poem is simple and lacks the mood that is portrayed by Akhmatova as she is heard reciting her own poetry aloud in Russian.
In contrast, Kunitz's translation of the poem does a more thorough job capturing the mood that I believe Akhmatova was experiencing as she created "Heart's Memory of Sun." Kunitz's translation reads as if Akhmatova is in deep, sorrowful reflection. The words cause me to feel a cold chill of hopelessness, possibly mirroring the emotions that Akhmatova was experiencing at the time.
In order to understand why these translators chose to portray Akhmatova's work in the manner that they did, I had to ask "Who are these translators?," and "What was their motive behind translating Akhmatova's work, and "How may they be able to relate to Akhmatova"? I asked myself these questions with the belief that, in order to be able to grasp the proper mood of the poem, the translators must have had experiences in their lives that enabled them to personally relate to the emotions that Akhmatova was experiencing in the poem. With these questions in mind, I was able to discover that Kunitz's translation may have been so efficient at capturing the mood that I perceive Akhmatova to have been feeling during her writing due to the fact that both Kunitz and Akhmatova share similar life stories. Both of the poets were abandoned early by their fathers, Kunitz losing his to suicide and Akhmatova to abandonment.
Throughout their early lives, both poets experienced the loss of many of their loved ones either to death or by abandonment. I believe that the similar experiences that the poets had in life allowed Kunitz to be able to understand Akhmatova's emotional state which was reflected in the way that he utilized the words and punctuation in order to capture a depressed mood.
Kenyon, on the other hand, resorted to writing the poem with simple words and little punctuation. Her translation of "Heart's Memory of Sun…" is much like her own works in that the poem is "simple, spare…. and lacks self-pity." Although Kenyon was known to struggle with depression, I do not believe that she encountered the same losses in life that were faced by Kunitz and Akhmatova. Thus, although she was able to translate the words of Akhmatova's poetry, she did not feel the same pain that Akhmatova was probably facing and thus this pain is absent from the translation. I believe that Kenyon's simplistic style of writing takes away from Akhmatova's emotional voice which causes me to favor Kunitz's translation over Kenyon's.
Prompt #1
ReplyDeleteI do agree that image embodies feeling and that it is one of the greatest treasures of poetry. In order to be considered great poetry to me the author must pay special attention to the images in the poem. An author must be aware of what the images will make the reader feel and do for the overall meaning of the poem. It is good writing if you can picture what the author is writing in the poem and even better if you actually feel like you are involved in what is happening in the poem. I think it is better that Kenyon decided to sacrifice form for image. It’s very difficult to keep the same form if something is translated anyway, and images in a poem are stronger to me than how it is formed.
The translation I picked to look at does not have a title, but it is on page 25. It is short, but the whole thing is loaded with images and there is sight, smell, touch, and sound in her images. The poem is about a remembrance of the author, a positive nostalgic moment where the author thought about these gatherings late at night that she loved. What I thought was interesting is she chose not to say anything about friends that I am assuming were at these gatherings. The images were purely of the surroundings and atmosphere.
The first image is a small table with glasses with frosted sides. I picture the table with many people sitting around it and all their glasses on the table. She then describes the fragrant vapor coming from their black coffee. The word fragrant gives the scene a very warm and inviting feel. And it is not just coffee, but black coffee, showing how closely she remembers these gatherings. The next line is of the heat and red color coming from the fireplace. This image also gives the scene a very warm feel. There is biting gaiety from someone telling a joke. It adds to the atmosphere, making the gathering seem light-humored and fun. The poem ends with another image, but it is a little different. The last word is cut off so I don’t know what it says, but the image is that she glances at something and feels helpless and frightened. The whole poem gives a happy nostalgic feeling and the last line changes that up, but I don’t fully understand because I can’t see the last word.
I do not feel that these images are really symbolic because it gives a very literal and physical scene. The only symbolism I see is possibly warmth being associated with the fireplace, but she even makes the heat coming from it explicit. I think the images succeed in the poem because it gives different aspects of this memory the author has in only six lines. She writes of what the scene looks like, what she smells, what she feels and what she hears. I like that I was able to get a feeling or a mood from the poem as to what the author felt when she was writing it.
Prompt #2: Kunitz vs. Kenyon on "The Guest"
ReplyDeleteThe comparison between Stanley Kunitz and Jane Kenyon is easily made. The key difference between the two are their interpretations. In this case we have both a mans interpretation on a woman’s work and a woman’s interpretation on a woman’s work. The difference can be staggering. I find Kenyon’s work more pleasing to my brain. In “The Guest” the attitude of the poem is one of empty amusement. In her translation of lines 7 and 8 she writes “I laughed: ‘It seems you see plenty of trouble ahead for us both.’” In these lines there the speaker displays a sort of haphazard teasing. In Stanley Kunitz translation of the same lines he writes, “I laughed, ‘It’s plain you mean to have us both destroyed.’” While there is still a playful edge his interpretation is much more severe. The interpretation almost calls for a sense of wrong doing on the parts of the man and woman, as if they were not already beyond that. These interpretations may seem similar but Kenyon’s interpretation is more believable. Another translation Kenyon makes in lines 11 and 12 is, “‘Tell me how they kiss you, tell me how you kiss.’” Compared to Stanley Kunitz’s, “‘Tell me how men kiss you, tell me how you kiss.’” The lines seem almost the same but Kenyon’s translation is far more personal. The man who is asking this knows that the woman in the poem is married. It is far more intimate, at least in my eyes, to say ‘they’ than it is to say ‘men.’ It adds an extra connection, a knowledge of a name or names the man might not want to bring up. Yet another comparison can be made in line 16. In Kenyon’s work the line reads, “in his serenely angry face.” while Kunitz’s work reads, “in his clear, sardonic face.” Jane Kenyon gives the reader a brilliant image of irony and stoic emotion. She gives a clear picture of a murky feeling. Kunitz’s is more intellectual in his description so it lacks the appeal of Kenyon’s work. It lacks the true essence of the meaning by tacking on adjectives that don’t give the same simple image of a “serenely angry” face. Going back to the beginning of the poem, in lines 3 and 4 Kunitz translates, “I am what I was, but a man came to me.” This sentence has great depth but it is partially nonsensical in the flow. He goes straight from examining the unchanging existence of the woman to a man coming for her. Kenyon has a flow, almost a texture to her writing when she easily translates, “and I myself have not changed: even so, a man came to call.” She relates the unchanging woman to the man with only a few key words. She relates that in the woman’s past she may not have had many male callers and yet here is a man come to call anyways. To go from the beginning to the end, in the last two lines of the poem Kenyon writes, “that there is nothing he needs, and nothing I can keep from him.” Kunitz writes, “there’s nothing from me he wants, I have nothing to refuse.” In this translation I believe that Kunitz may have done a better job on giving the reader an image. His translation implies that the woman had nothing to give in the first place. This goes along with the empty amusement the whole poem seems to radiate. Kenyon has a flow, however, that is more appealing than Kunitz. In her interpretation the woman and man share a quiet connection. He wants nothing from her, but if he did she would give it to him, possibly because the woman has no one else to give it to. She has nothing else to indulge in. These are all just interpretations of the interpretation though, so they are all open to speculation and interpretations of their own. I believe, though, that overall, Jane Kenyon does a better job at expressing Akhmatova’s original images and feelings than Stanley Kunitz does.
Prompt#1 I do agree that embodiment is perhaps the greatest treasure of lyric poetry because the feeling and the images help paint a better picture of what the poem is talking about so the reader can get a better understanding of what is going on in the poem. In the fifth translation some of the imagery she use is when she say's in the third line "even if lips draw near in awful silence." Akhmatova also uses imagery in the fourth line where she says "and love tears at the heart." Another place she uses imagery is in the third line were she says "that even if lips draw near in awful silence." The reason I think line three is symbolic is because the kiss symbolizes the person getting real close to the other person who is going to get kissed and that person doesn't really want to and she want to take a step back. The last place Akhmatova uses imagery is in the last line were she says "my heart beats no faster under your hand." I think the poem is pretty much literal except for lines six and twelve which I think are symbolic. The reason I think line six is symbolic is because it says "and years of happiness, exalted and full of fire." The fire represents everything going away and disappearing for ever. Just like when you light something on fire it burns or goes away and you can never get it back. So the years of happiness are now gone and forgotten about. The reason I think line twelve is symbolic is because when it say's "my heart beats no faster under your hand." The person who's heart is beating symbolizes a person who understands how love can hurt someone and there heart doesn't beat faster because that person doesn't want to get fully involved and then get hurt because if they did really want to get fully involved and really truly like that person. There heart would be beating faster when it was touched by the other hand.Another reason you know the person understand how love can hurt someone is in the seven and eight line were it says “because the soul is free and does not know the low luxuries of sensual life.” I think the images succeed in the poem. One reason I think the images succeeded in this poem is because it has a lot of feelings and emotions. Also the poem was was about a real strong emotion called love and how dangerous it can be. Also some line in the poem that had good imagery were line four when it said "and love tears at the heart." when he say's this it gives me an image of love having tears (feeling bad) for the heart. This line is also ironic because usually it is the heart that breaks or tears over love but in this poem it is the other way around. Also another image that makes this poem succeed is line three were it says "even if lips draw near in awful silence." This line in the poem just paints a picture in my head when I read it. So the in this poem it definitely has images that succeed in the poem and that leave you satisfied.
ReplyDeleteIn the poem “The Guest,” reading both translations brought many different thoughts to me. In the first one by Kenyon, my thoughts were that it started off by describing how this man came up to him and asked him, “tell me how they kiss you, tell me how you kiss.” When I first read it, I thought he was just talking about how the flowers affected this man, but after I read the other translation by Kunitz, it makes it seem as if he could possibly be gay. It also describes how he is attracted to his ring, and how he was so focused upon it. In the last section of the poem, the Kenyon translation, he says “that there is nothing he needs, and nothing I can keep from him.” What does this mean? I think this means that as a guest he doesn’t need anything from his host, but that the host would give him anything he needed. In Kenyon’s poem, he doesn’t use detailed words that give better description of what’s going on in the poem. I also didn’t really like how it seemed so bland unlike the other one.
ReplyDeleteIn the Kunitz translation, it starts off about the same as the Kenyon translation. Describing how the snow was hitting the windows, and then this man comes up to him and says “to be with you in hell.” The answer the man gives the guest is different answer from the other poem. This poem says that they will both be “destroyed,” which seems a little harsh unlike the first one that just says that he sees plenty of trouble ahead of us both. Then there was a reference towards maybe the host being gay because the guest asked him how men kiss him and how you kiss. I was quite confused about why this statement was even made. I like the detailed words in this poem though. The vocabulary is deeper and makes it seems stronger than the Kenyon poem. In the Kunitz poem, the last line “I have nothing to refuse,” I don’t really understand what this means. Why does the beginning start with the word nothing and end with the word nothing. I like how it makes you think about the words that are being used. It kept my interest throughout the poem and made me wonder why certain words were changed from the Kenyon poem.
I think reason these poems are somewhat different is because they saw these actions differently, and maybe it was the environment that they were writing in. The word usage is also not the same, and it seems as though the second one is more passionate. Using the words ardently and intimately makes it seem deeper, and shows more sincerity from the host towards the guest or whatever the situation may be. One question I would ask would be why does this man write about going to hell? Why would he ever even think about taking someone to hell with him? I feel that beings much questioning to what the author was going through as he was writing this poem.
Prompt #2
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two translations of “Heart’s Memory of Sun…” by Jane Kenyon and Stanley Kunitz, I came to like Jane Kenyon’s translation much more. Kenyon’s translation, I feel, is simple and to the point. After reading Jane Kenyon’s interview from a March 1993 interview with David Bradt, it became very obvious that Jane Kenyon was very close to the poems of Anna Akhmatova, so much so that Kenyon even said she forgot the poems were not hers. Kenyon’s translation and her ability to change literal details to tell the emotional truth of the poem were what grabbed my attention in “Heart’s Memory of Sun…” Kenyon worked very hard to translate Akhmatova’s poems and I feel that her hard work and determination to get them as close to the original should not go unnoticed.
In Jane Kenyon’s translation of “Heart’s Memory of Sun…” the diction of the poem was conversational and used normal everyday language. Her translation was very simple, to the point, and concise. Even though Kenyon’s translation may be easier to read than Kunitz, I feel that her tone is very serious and intimate, as if she were the first night of winter. Kenyon’s use of the lines “The memory of the sun weakens in my heart” grabs my attention more and welcomes one into the poem, I feel, much better than does the second translation by Kunitz where the first line is “Hearts memory of sun grows fainter”. Another line that made me enjoy Kenyon’s translation was when she used “Against the empty sky the willow opens a transparent fan”. Sitting here right now, the imagery used here did an excellent job of painting a picture in my head of the barren and leafless willow tree underneath a sky that was becoming black with night.
One of the lines in Kenyon’s poem that also caught my attention was “What’s this? Darkness?” Unlike Kunitz line “What now? Darkness?”, I think that when Kenyon asks “What’s this?” it seems to be more of a surprising question as if Akhmatova was truly in disbelief that winter was coming already, where as Kunitz’s line “What now?” makes winter seem as if it is annoying and somewhat a reoccurring theme. Kenyon’s last three lines, to me, make it seem like winter is more inviting and although the hearts memory of the sun weakens, it is ok because for now it is winter time. In contrast, Kunitz makes winter seem as a horrible thing that nobody can stand, kind of like “Oh great….here comes winter”, whereas Kenyon invites the reader into the first night of winter.
In reference to the vocabulary used by both Kenyon and Kunitz, Kunitz translation was definitely more sophisticated and complex, but for me personally, I do not like poems like that. I like the fact that Jane Kenyon kept her translation simple and used common everyday words like “yellow” instead of “sallow”, and “lightly” instead of “scarcely”.
I feel that in Kenyon’s translation, the imagery portrayed by the poem was much more clear and better to understand. As Kenyon would later say in her interview with David Bradt, “The images in a good poem come from a deep place, and they give the poem a sense of cohesion.” This is most likely the reason that Kenyon chose to use the lines “grass turns yellow” instead of “sallow is the grass” and also “a transparent fan” instead of “its bare-boned fan”. I do not think that the reasoning behind the different decisions each translator made had to do with the struggles each had endured, but instead which one could honestly sit down and fall in love with the poems of Anna Akhmatova.
Response #1
ReplyDeleteImagery indubitably embodies poetry in a sense that, without it, the reader would be hard up to associate the words on paper (er, screen?) with a pre-established mental picture. The beauty of The Poem is its innate ability to prompt reader memory. An effective poem read in the presence of, per se, a class full of students would resonate through the room arousing an array of inconsistent visuals in the minds of the room’s inhabitants; no one image being better or worse than any other—simply a proof that imagery cues different emotions in each respective mind. Imagery makes poetry reading an entirely interpersonal experience. The reader is able to relate to the poet, not necessarily in the same sense as the poet imagined when constructing a work, but on some level nonetheless. In Kenyon’s translation of poem #8, the imagery of ‘the vapor rising from the black coffee,’ is enough to leave the taste of fresh brewed java on the end of my tongue, and the warm aroma deep within my nasal cavity. For me, this is an enjoyable experience insofar as I am an avid coffee-drinker. Perhaps, for someone who turns their nose at the scent of a cup of joe, this experience would not be near as agreeable. The described scene of friends gathered around a winter fireplace, coffee in hand, exchanging humor and thoughts serves as a pleasing image in my mind. Thereby the poem is not simply about a group of friends, gathered for coffee and small talk. The lines of the piece speak of the power of words amongst friends, the emotions brought upon by humor, the romanticism of winter, the simple pleasures of nature, et cetera. To read a poem in completely literal terms is to undermine the inherent power of art.
i.e.
---------------------------
The Red Wheelbarrow
by William Carlos Williams
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
-------------------------
Dr. Williams glanced out the window of a patient’s home while caring for her and captured the scene above. He feared for her life and wished to bear witness to this occurrence by way of a poem. Now, ask Gumilev what this poem is about.
End.
Prompt #1
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kenyon that if something must be sacrificed, it is better to sacrifice the form of the poem over the imagery. Imagery is what makes the poem what it is. Without imagery you take the chance of losing connection with the reader. Imagery is what helps the reader step into the mind of the poet. Imagery gives the reader a chance to see things from how the poet sees things. In a way, I think imagery is what gives a poem form or can be used to help to set up the structure of a poem. However, sometimes if you lose the form of a poem, it is possible that you may lose some of the power of the imagery in a poem. Without form an image can only be so powerful. I think it is hard to translate poems without losing something in the process. I also believe that a poem that has been translated can never be as powerful as the language it was originally written in. One poem I found to have a strong use of imagery is the poem in section 8, page 25. In this poem a scene is being described as the poet remembers it. It is as though she is thinking back at a pleasant memory from the past. She remembers a small table, glasses with frosted sides, vapors coming from black coffee, a lit fireplace, and the glance of a lover. I don’t see any of these images as being symbolic, but rather a literal description of what is being seen. In this poem I like the way things are described beyond the obvious. For example, instead of saying something simple like “steam rises from a cup of coffee she says “fragrant vapor rising from black coffee”. This description provides the reader with a more precise understanding of what the poet is seeing. However, one thing the poet never answers and leaves me unsatisfied about is that she doesn’t connect emotion with any of the descriptions until the very end so reader never truly understands what it is about this scene that the poet loved. At the end of the poem she uses the emotion of fright to describe the glance of her love, but a glance a fright doesn’t seem like something most people would want to see from their love so it is hard for me to understand what it is about “those gatherings late at night” that she loved. Perhaps, the images by themselves are not symbolic, but as a whole they are. It is possible that by describing these few little things she remembers, the poet is trying to symbolize the idea that it is the simple pleasures in life that can make one happy. For, example to some a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee, but to the poet that cup of coffee is connected with a memory and that memory of sitting by fireplace drinking coffee by someone she loves could symbolize the goods times when things were simpler.
Prompt 2:
ReplyDeleteI like the first translation of the poem, “Heart’s Memory of Sun” by Kenyon better than the second one by Kunitz. I think I might have a bias against the second one because obviously I read the first translation before the second one. This makes me compare all the different ways the ideas or thoughts of the author are expressed in the second translation to the first one. I also feel like after reading a poem two different ways (two different translations), I am more able to find the meaning of the poem as a whole easier and more accurately as opposed to if I only had one translation. This can be done by taking the different lines that I do not understand very well and then by reading the two translations of them. This way, it allows for things to be said two different ways which in turn gives it a fuller meaning.
Another aspect of the first translation by Kenyon that I liked more, as compared to the second one, was the punctuation. In the first translation, I liked the end of the second stanza. It starts by saying, “Nothing will ever happen here –not ever!” The punctuation gave it a lot of feeling. I find this to be the case when there is less punctuation like exclamation points and question marks because then it has more meaning as opposed to it being used all over the poem. As in this case, it seems to me that this line evokes a sort of anger or a sense of depressed meaning into the poem; or at least that is what I felt when I read this line. Another line that demonstrates this well is the one that has two questions in it. “What’s this? Darkness?” These questions put an emphasis on this part of the poem.
A reason why I like this poem more is because it sounds better to me in general. The words flow together better. Kuntz’s translation seems to be choppier. The words do not fit together all that well. For example, in the first stanza, the last two lines stood out to me. They state, “a few flakes toss in the wind scarcely, scarcely.” This does not sound as good as the first translation of these lines. “Wind blows the early flakes of snow lightly, lightly.” This appeals to me more because it sounds softer and more feminine. I also like how there is repetition in these lines. It actually keeps my attention better.
I feel that the first line of a poem is very important. It is what draws me into the poem or not. It is the first impression in a sense. Kenyon’s translation of the first line in the poem is much more beautiful than Kunitz’s translation. “The memory of sun weakens in my heart” is much more intimate than the first line of Kunitz’s translation that states, “Heart’s memory of sun grows fainter.” This line just does not appeal to me like Kenyon’s translation of the poem does.
After I finished reading the two translations to the poem, “Hearts Memory of Sun,” I was more interested and influenced by the Kunitz. I felt this way because Kunitz’s word usage and choice was much more eye-catching and created a better image for the reader. The imagery was easy to create because the flow of the words and pattern in which they were said was smooth and clear. It was specific and not so general compared to the Kenyon translation. What I mean when I say general compared to specific would be using the words “lightly” instead of “scarcely” and “weaker” instead of “fainter.”
ReplyDeleteAs far as the phrases and lines go, the Kenyon translation was boring in a sense because the tone I felt when reading was just dull. I was able to imagine what the lines were saying but they just were not capturing the true attention as the Kunitz translation did. I believe the first line is crucial in capturing the attention of the reader. Thus the Kenyon translation goes as follows, “The memory of the sun weakens in my heart,” and to me that is boring and I do not feel any emotion behind it. Whereas the Kunitz translation says, “Heart’s memory of sun grows fainter,” now the tone of that line is very strong and it is making a strong statement. It is as if Kunitz is making an imperative statement and nothing can counter it. In the last two lines of each poem it is as if the Kenyon translation is sad, but not as heart drenching as the Kunitz. In the Kenyon translation it says, “What’s this? Darkness?” it is as if the translator is sad but is just being hopeless and accepting it. Whereas in the Kenyon translation, “What now? Darkness?” the “What now?” phrase proposes some sense of hope. It is as if the translator is asking “what now?” and maybe having hoped that they can overcome what is coming.
After reading the two poems I concluded that the Kenyon translation no doubt had some experience that led to great sadness but it was not to a degree such as Kunitz’s translation. It is as if the Kunitz translation reflected and compared better with Ahkmatova because the poem was more striking. It attacked the reader’s senses unlike the Kenyon translation. The Kenyon translation proposed an experience which did not have as great of an effect on one’s morale as Kunitz. By morale I mean ones confidence, self-esteem, and drive. After reading the Kunitz translation I was able to relate to the feeling I experienced when reading the translation. I have had a similar experience to which I could relate and think of the sun growing fainter in me and everything around being frozen. It is feeling of depression, fatigue, and I think most important, the loss of determination and will. But overall, I feel that the Kunitz translation takes a much bigger toll on the reader’s emotion and is a better constructed translation of the poem, “Heart’s Memory of Sun.”
"The Guest" can be perceived in many different ways in its open and natural form. Me myself I perceived "the Guest" as a widow explaning the confrontation between her and this suitor. The Kunitz translation definitely seemed to put more imagery and definition interpreting the poem. While Kunitz's definition was well defined, it also fell into the poem itself very well. Kenyon stuck with a beat around the bush aspect of the poem. Kenyon still portrayed a great translation to the poem, but lacked the actual defining point in the whole encounter. The Kunitz first and last stanza using the word "nothing" tells me that she has no one to lean on. whether her husband died or left her it was an unhappy ending because in the fourth stanza she states that, "His torpid eyes were fixed unblinking on my ring. Not a single muscle stirred in his clear,sardonic face." That tells me that not only was she married but that she still wears a wedding ring portraying that fact to others. Ashamed, the woman is not which showed that she still loves her husband. This also says that the man has an idea that she might be still married by showing no emotion change while looking at her wedding ring. The Kunitz translation also lets us know, to an extent, that the main character is a woman. In the third stanza it says, "Tell me how men kiss you, tell me how you kiss." While the Kenyon translation states, "Tell me how they kiss you, tell me how you kiss." The slight difference between the words "they" and "men" give the sexuality and genders away. A great instance where being more critical gets you the advantage from me. The last stanza is ths stanza that can make or break the poem and I believe that the Kunitz stanza best describes the ending. Kenyon gets straight to the point by stating, "this hard and passionate certainty that there is nothing he needs and nothing I can keep from him." This to myself acts as it was so basic that we cant tell what he or she wants. He could be kidding or be serious at the same time, while she could be feeling him and his "swagger". Their is just no way to know for sure. Now the Kunitz translation says, "Oh I see: his game is that he knows intimately ardently there's nothing from me he wants, I have nothing to refuse." This gave me an understanding that the suitor knows that she has the ring on, so is just flirting, maybe checking to see if she is still married or so. And she knows he knows, so how does that change her perspective of the suitor? As I said in the beginning, I like Kunitz's depth with the translation. Stays with the whole nothing them throughout the whole poem itself. Kenyon somewhat transfers from everything(the first word) to nothing(last stanza) so maybe Kenyon thinks she lost something throughout the poem.
ReplyDeleteI am choosing to respond to prompt number one because I feel that I can have a larger input on this issue. For me, I love the imagery that is presented in poetry. The use of language and imagery are the reasons that I love reading poetry. As stated in class, a poet uses every word within a poem for a specific meaning. The poet uses these words to most accurately describe a scene, emotion, or any of our senses to the reader. This is the imagery which I "treasure" from lyric poetry. I like to feel as though I am a part of the poem. The sensory images that are presented in the language sometimes trigger memories for me, or relate to an actual experience in my life, so therefore I can connect with the poem and enjoy it much more. The diction used by poets is so crucial, and I agree with Kenyon's decision to sacrifice form for image, because although form is essential to a poem, personally I do not think that it has that much effect on a reader as the image does. This is just my opinion though because I enjoy the diction and choice of words more so than the syntax and structure of a poem. As Kenyon says though, the embodiment of this treasure of image is crucial, because this is how readers relate to poems, understand them in greater detail, and connect with them on a deeper level. "Image embodies feeling," and all poetry is written with feeling, so if the image that describes that feeling is sacrificed, what is left? I particularly enjoyed the imagery in poem number six. The use of the color to describe the "white stone," brings me back to discussing my high school English class days and the analysis of different colors. To me, white is a feeling of rebirth or cleansing, and I feel that I white stone really describes the memory which Akhmatova is trying to portray. The deep well also shows the depth of the character's soul and true being, where this one white memory obviously stands out amongst the dark depths of this well. This really is intriguing, because it shows us how important and crucial this memory is. Next, the word pensive sticks out to myself, because it means in a very reflective almost dream-like state, and this is describing the eyes of the character. To me, eyes really show the true identity of a person at that moment, and the fact that the character's eyes are pensive shows that this memory has stuck with her for so long. They reflect on her life just like the melancholy (pensive-like) tale that is presented with inside her. Lastly, I want to point out glorious sorrows, which obviously means a great sorry which had some profound meaning come from it even though it was a sorrowful moment. This then turns into the memory that has been inside the character all along. This white stone of rebirth, that I feel has a positive outlook on the previously bad memory being portrayed on this new person. Everything that Akhmatova, and Kenyon translated, is symbolic, because it has a true purpose and use of its meaning throughout the entire poem.
ReplyDeleteI chose to look more closely at “Heart’s Memory of Sun” because I made more of connection with it compared to “The Guest.” After reading each translation many times I tend to gravitate more towards Kunitz’s translation. I think that I like it better because of his choice in vocabulary when translating. One example of lines that are different in each translation that sticks out to me is lines nine and ten. Kunitz’s translation is “In the bleak sky the willow spreads its bare-boned fan.” While lines nine and ten of Kenyon’s translation read, “Against the empty sky the willow opens a transparent fan. I like Kunitz’s translation better not only because I think he uses more appealing vocabulary, but it also seems to flow and sound nicer to me. Also I like the image I get of the bare-boned fan spreading rather than a transparent fan opening. At first after reading this poem it seemed as though Kunitz had a more sophisticated and interesting translation of Ahkmatova’s work, but then I thought about why each poet chose to interpret her work the way they did. I realize that often translation can be tricky, because language often lacks direct translations, or even more problematic, different languages have different ways and uses of illustrating feeling and using metaphors. So it is easy to see especially in poetry how there can be many different interpretations of a work, and then even more translations of that piece. I then went on to read the section at the end of the packet with the Kenyon interview, and from this I feel like I better understood why Kenyon translated the pieces the way that she did. From this information I could see how her opinion of translation was incorporated into her work. In comparing the two poems I found that Kenyon’s seemed to be more of a literal translation with less creativity in vocabulary and structure compared to Kunitz’s. It seemed like Kenyon did not want to “dress it up” as much as Kunitz’s did. From her interview this idea was reinforced in her statement, “Either you sacrifice the sound patterns in order to keep the images intact or you sacrifice the images in order to keep the sound intact. She also goes on to say, “You’re going to sacrifice either image, or form and sound, and of the two the one I would be most reluctant to lose is the integrity of the images. Almost everything else can be tinkered with, but if that (the images) is tinkered with, the whole work flies apart.” From this I can clearly tell why Kenyon chose to translate the way she did. At the sacrifice of sound and form, she chose to stick closely with the feeling and images in Ahkmatova’s work. This may have been why I found Kunitz’s work at first and fundamentally more appealing. But after learning the motive and strategy of Kenyon, I found her work becoming more appealing and making more sense to me. I enjoy both poems and knowing what I know now find things in each that I like more than the other. I prefer Kunit’z translation at a basic level, the way it sounds and feels. But I appreciate Kenyon’s work because of the commitment she has to the original work and its images.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly some noticeable differences between the two translations of "The Guest." Overall, I slightly prefer the translation done by Kunitz, though I enjoy both of the versions. One of the reasons I prefer Kunitz's translation is because of its greater clarity. For instance, compare lines eleven and twelve from both versions. In Kenyon's translation, the lines read "Tell me how they kiss you / tell me how you kiss." In Kunitz's version, however, the lines read "Tell me how men kiss you / tell me how you kiss." The difference is subtle, but I prefer the use of the word "men" because it's more specific. When the word "them" is used instead, it could refer to a smaller subgroup. The demand could mean tell me how your lovers kiss, or tell me how your husbands have kissed. Perhaps some people enjoy this vagueness in the text, but I prefer to have a more concrete understanding of what I'm reading.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases, my perception of what was being said in the story was actually altered by the different translations. Take the final two lines of both of the poems. In Kenyon's translation, the lines read "that there is nothing he needs / and nothing I can keep from him." To me, the phrase "there is…nothing I can keep from him" gives me the impression that the man will take whatever he wants out of the woman by force. However, in Kunitz's translation, the lines are as follows: "There's nothing from me he wants / I have nothing to refuse." This gives me more of an impression that the narrator will give the man whatever he wants because she has no reason to do otherwise, rather than because she can't refuse him."
Additionally, I enjoy Kunitz's version better because of his word choice. For example, examine lines thirteen and fourteen. In Kenyon's version, the lines read "And his half-closed eyes / remained on my ring." To me, this line is on the borderline of bland; there aren't any words that jump out and grab you. However, Kunitz's translation has some punch to it: "His torpid eyes were fixed / unblinking on my ring." To me, the inclusion of the unusual adjective "torpid" and the description of the eyes as being "fixed unblinking" makes the poem more interesting.
However, that's not to say that there aren't some cases in which I prefer Kenyon's word usage. For instance, in line sixteen, I think there's a bit of brilliance to the phrase "serenely angry." Because the words themselves are contradictory, they grabbed my attention when they were used alongside one another. Kunitz's description of the man's "clear, sardonic face" is still good; the language of it just doesn't command quite as much intriguing beauty.
Personally, I feel like Kenyon was trying to capture Akhmatova in the simplest form possible. That explains her use of more common adjectives and plain wording. On the other hand, I feel that Kunitz tried to flesh out the translation by including more complex word choice. Both translations are strong in their own respect.
Prompt #2
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both translations of the poems “Heart’s Memory of Sun. . .” and “The Guest,” Kenyon’s translation of “Heart’s Memory of Sun. . .” was of most interest to me. There is a distinct difference in the two translations seeing that Stanley Kunitz took a more abstract approach to the interpretation where as Jane Kenyon presented a more simplistic interpretation. Her word choice and use of imagery made the poem more realistic and appealing.
In her first couple lines Kenyon uses imagery to set the scene, “The memory of sun weakens in my heart, grass turns yellow, wind blows the early flakes of snow lightly, lightly.” This simple yet vivid word choice enables the reader to get a sense of this early brought on winter. In comparison, Stanley Kunitz chooses a more elaborate road in his first couple lines stating, “Heart’s memory of sun grows fainter, sallow is the grass; a few flakes toss in the wind scarcely, scarcely.” These few lines seemed a bit more complicated and choppy compared to Kenyon’s. These lines did not grab my attention, rather I had to reread them another time in order to understand what was going on. Also, Kenyon’s use of punctuation and word placement made certain statements stand out with a decent amount of emotion. In the second stanza of the poem Kenyon states “Nothing at all will ever happen here—not ever!” The use of the punctuation and pause in the sentence adds emotion to the poem. It creates the effect that nothing will ever happen there, and the exclamation mark adds extra emotion to the sentence.
Another distinct difference between Kenyon’s and Kunitz poem is in the overall content of the poem. It seemed to me that Kenyon took the romantic approach and tried to show a woman’s mixed feelings about a certain love interest of hers. This made the title have a somewhat underlying meaning, which was that the “Heart’s Memory of Sun” could be taken as the woman’s memory of a love of hers. Whereas Kunitz took a more nature resembling approach in that he used a lot of imagery and words that resembled things in nature such as the sky, water, and trees. For example, in his second to last stanza Kunitz translates, “The windows of the palace burn remote and still. No path, no lane, only the iceholes are dark.”In contrast, Kenyon took this stanza in a completely different direction by stating, “And having braided my hair carefully for the night as if tomorrow braids will be necessary, . . “ She gave the imagery of a woman braiding her hair waiting for the next day to come, whereas Kunitz presented an icy cold atmosphere where a palace stands alone and the light from a fire within shines through its windows. These are great examples of how two people can take the same lines and interpret them entirely different. This is shown a lot throughout the last half of the poem, where Kenyon and Kunitz make different interpretations of Anna Akhmatova’s work. One factor that may contribute to this difference is that Kenyon is a woman, and her romantic and womanly instincts show in her translation when she refers to feelings of wonder and love. Her word choice is fluid and effective in getting her point across. On the other hand Kunitz is a male, and this becomes apparent in his blunt and choppy interpretation of Akhmatova’s work. He doesn’t refer to love but rather more visual objects and imagery, whereas Kenyon still presents visual things but also adds in a deeper meaning to her words.
Both poets did a good job at translating Akhmatova’s work, but I felt that Kenyon did a better job at capturing Akhmatova’s emotion and feelings within the play.
Prompt #1
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the introduction of “Twenty Poems”, I do agree with Kenyon. Image is very important for poetry. It helps the reader to get a better understanding of what is going on, to comprehend what the poet is trying to convey. “Because it is impossible to translate with fidelity to form and image, I have sacrificed form for image.” In my opinion, to explain fidelity in a plain form would be hard to get a sense of what is going on, whereas as if the poet uses imagery, such as a metaphor it paints the poem more clear to get a better understanding. It provides fullness to the poem. For example, if a poet where to say the love my life broke my heart and I will never get over it, this is a good way to show the emotion but it is plain and not as interesting. But if she says my heart was broken like shatter glass, as pieces resemble what we had, memories, love, pain all of which made a whole heart that reflected what was, gives a better image. I am more focused on the poem and can really feel the pain of what the poet is expressing. In which agrees with Kenyon when she says, “This embodiment is perhaps the greatest treasure of lyric poetry.”
Upon reviewing “The Guest” Kenyon uses nature to describe her imagery metaphorically. In the first part of the stanzas she describes the snow as hard and not just plain snow. To me, that signifies coldness or some type of roughness and purity and then she goes on to say, “And I myself have not changed so, a man came to call. She then is trying to say that she still remains the same, as if she was trying to change, like the seasons and be pure as the snow. Kenyon clarifies her resistance to change, when a man calls. The man is her way of saying that she is cheating, because she does not address him as her “husband” but as “a man”.
Lastly throughout the poem Kenyon’s imagery is symbolic. When she asks what the man wants as he responses, “To be with you in hell” is symbolic of the adultery that she and the man committed, and that is considered to be a sin. Then within the third stanza her symbolism of, “But lifting his dry hand he lightly touched the flowers.” Has another meaning that he put his dry hands on her vagina, and when he replies shows his passion towards her as he plays with her flowers and seducing her. Lastly, at the end of her poem she comes to the conclusion “that there is nothing he needs, and nothing I can keep from him”. This states that she has not changed and probably will not change her ways as they continue in their passion. The images in the poems succeed and leave me satisfied, and give me a good understanding of what is being told.
Prompt #2
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Kenyon (1914) and Kunitz’s (1914) translations of Ahkmatova’s poem “The Guest,” I favored Kunitz’s descriptive version over Kenyon’s simplistic expressions. Kunitz’s version encompassed a strong sense of fresh language that made every word essential to the meaning of the account. Compared to Kunitz, I felt Kenyon’s translation lacked flow, thought, and description.
In Kenyon’s poem, the fourth line “a man came to call” and Kunitz’s fourth line, “but a man came to me,” differ in the narrator’s attention in the opening scene. Kunitz’s line easily portrays the idea that a man distracted the narrator from the repetitive snow scenery outside the windows, while Kenyon’s inactive verb “to call” makes the line uninteresting and stale. Her choices of words make the statement incomplete, while Kunitz’s version shows that the man has some importance to her presence and the story. In lines seven and eight of Kenyon’s version: “It seems you see plenty of trouble ahead for us both” is very choppy and does not articulate the seductive reasoning behind the meaning of the poem. Although Kenyon claims that she “sacrificed form for image” (5), I believed she failed greatly in conveying an articulate and comprehensive significance of the poem. Kunitz’s lines seven and eight read: “It’s plain you mean to have us both destroyed” completes the thought that the narrator would easily laugh from such an awkward gesture from the man. Yet, any reader could easy approach and deduce the experience, making the poem stronger on a connective level. Connection, from Kenyon’s teachings from poetry, is an important aspect for any reader of poetry, but she fails to throw away confusing statement that would help improve the form of the poem and even more the meaning.
Most importantly the descriptions in this poem shape the author’s message, which is essential since these pieces are translations from another language. If the overall message is lost, the poem is lost and has no path or purpose for connection. In the fourth stanza, the thirteenth line, Kenyon’s poem describes the man’s eyes, an especially symbolic image as “half closed”. Yet, Kunitz’s thirteenth line illustrates the man’s eyes as “torpid eyes were fixed.” The choice to express the man’s eyes as torpid, sluggish and inactive yet set on the wedding ring shows the seductive desire. Compared to half closed, the diction in this translation misses a deeper connection about the presence of the man. The man’s character is further established in line sixteen of both translations; Kenyon’s reads “in his serenely angry face” while Kunitz’s reads “in his clear, sardonic face.” Kenyon’s version demonstrates controversy over the image of the man through her literally juxtaposition choice of serenely and angry, yet this description is more confusing. Serenely is more peaceful and tranquil, while angry depicts annoyance or irritation. But, Kunitz’s translation describes the scene as sardonic, portraying the possibility that this seducing man is mocking or scorning this woman for her choice in marriage. Instead of merely contemplating the angry visual on the man’s face, Kunitz’s poem describes the scene as clearly showing the man is upset with this women’s choice to give into his seduction. Kunitz’s translated plot flows well. Although, the man is present in the poem, the descriptions and conclusions about the man from Kunitz’s version is more specific, and therefore, better represents a specific character the reader could draw a connection to.
I agree with Jillian’s statement that the Kunitz’s translation reads better because of the closer and deeper emotional connection that he had with Akhmatova’s life. Although both writers experienced loss and frustration, Kunitz’s experiences, as well as his ability to depict a good form, with an accurate message from the writer, makes his works stronger.
Post #2:
ReplyDeleteI chose to comment on the difference between Jane Kenyon's and Stanley Kunitz's translations of Akhmatova's "The Guest" because I was surprised at the variety of interpretations that stem from such minor details of translation. I am minoring in German and want to look into becoming a translator, so comparing translations was especially interesting to me.
Personally, I found that Kunitz was able to better describe the emotionality Akhmatova was trying to convey in her original poem. His translation was more poetically-crafted, whereas Kenyon's was much more literal. An example of this can be found in the difference between Kenyon's translation: "and I myself have not changed" and Kunitz's: "I am what I was". Because Jane Kenyon was so ardently refusing to sacrifice image for form, the form of her poem was quite wordy at times. One of the times when her wordiness was apparent occured in the fourth paragraph("Not even the smallest muscle moved/in his serenly angry face"). As soon as I read Kunitz's version of that paragraph, the poem seemed to regain its earlier flow. While I appreciate Kenyon's determination to preserve the original image of the poem, I admit that Kunitz's version made more of an impact on me as I read it. As is noted on the photocopy, he starts and ends the poem with "nothing", which suggests that "nothingness" could be one reoccuring theme in the poem. Similarly, Kunitz's translation displays more emotionally-charged themes of negativity and darkness, which I think adds to the impact the poem makes. For example, whereas Kenyon translates a line as "...it fills him with joy--/this hard and passionate certainty", Kunitz translates it as "his game is that he knows/intimately, ardently". The words "joy", "passionate" and "certainty" conflict with more negative themes earlier in the poem such as "'To be with you in hell’”, and inhibit the formation of a single theme. In his version, Kunitz suggests that the guest is to blame for the destruction of both of the characters in the poem. On the other hand, Kenyon paints a more positive picture (even though the line is ominous either way). She describes the guest as predicting trouble for both the characters, not causing their demise. Another interesting difference between the two translations is the use of the word "dry" as opposed to "thin" when describing the guest's hand. This difference is vital because it plays a role in shaping the reader's image of the man who visited Anna. The implications of the two words can be widely interpreted; a dry hand could mean the guest works (hard) with his hands, his personality is dry, or that he thirsts for something. But a thin hand could represent the absence of food or health, or a certain delicacy that he exhibits. As to which adjective is better suited for this poem, it depends mostly on Anna Akhmatova's original meaning. I wouldn't say that either adjective is stronger because both "dry" and "thin" could imply much about a character in a broader sense. Other than adjectives describing the guest's hand, the verb describing it also varies. Kenyon translates the guest's "dry" hand as touching the flowers--which implies an arid or bored type of contact--whereas Kunitz translates the guest's "thin" hand as stroking the flowers--which implies a more sensual, delicate type of contact.
I agree that imagery in poetry is one of the corner stones in writing good poetry. To me if a poem brings out emotions whether or not they are the same feelings the writer was feeling at the time, the poem has fulfilled its purpose. This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Anna Akhmatova’s poetry. I felt like everything she said had a bigger importance than just the face value someone might read. I also think that it was important to have the background information about Akhmatova’s life in order to connect better with some of the things she was saying. When I was reading about her father I felt like she might be a darker poet because of how she was treated by him. The more I read the more things that crossed me as being things that will influence her poetry, such as, have married multiple times, World War One and Two, and her son being imprisoned. These events seem to have an impact on her poetry, an example was the poem:
ReplyDeleteLike a white stone in a deep well
one memory lies inside me.
I cannot and will not fight against it:
it is joy and it is pain.
It seems to me that anyone who looks
into my eyes will notice it immediately,
becoming sadder and more pensive
than someone listening to a melancholy tale.
I remember how the gods turned people
into things, not killing their consciousness.
And now, to keep these glorious sorrows alive,
you have turned into my memory of you.
This was one of my favorite poems because of the imagery she has in it. The first two lines send a few different feelings and ideas through my head, one of which being that sometime in her past there was a person or event that she loved. “it is joy and it is pain” could be referring to that yes she loved the person or thing but now looking back it is painful knowing she will never be able to have it back. The reference to the “well” and the “memory” I think is what helps this connect to me because there are things that are just memories that are forgotten and at the time it was one of the best things I was doing. However in line three this poem sends different emotions to me that maybe this memory was more of a negative and not something that she was enjoying at the time. I really like this line because of how she describes looking into her eyes. It again helps connect with the poem because I’m sure that most people have been able to see that someone is sad or depressed by just looking at their body language or into their eyes. The last two lines again draw a lot on imagery they talk about the “gods” not killing “consciousness”. I feel more and more that this memory is something that she has tried hard to forget but for some reason no matter what she does it will not go away. “glorious sorrows” changes my feelings because I again am not sure whether or not she is happy or sad about this memory. I think this poem does a good job of paint a mental picture in the readers mind. As a side note I felt like this poem was about her father and how he had left her as a child.
-Andrew Rohwer
Prompt 2:
ReplyDeleteDeciphering poetry does not come easy to me; symbolism and imagery are beautiful, yet undoubtedly perplexing. Imagery can travel in many different directions so it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what the writer wants to express through their specific diction, hence the two varying translations of “The Guest.” Sometimes, the simpler, the better.
That being said, I was a little dumbfounded after I read the first translation of “The Guest” by Jane Kenyon. In the third stanza, Kenyon translates, “but lifting his dry hand / he lightly touched the flowers. / 'Tell me how they kiss you, / tell me how you kiss.'” At first, I scratched my head and wondered, did the flowers kiss the woman in some way, or is the man referring to other lovers? The pronoun “they” was not specified and therefore led me to confusion. It wasn't until I read Stanley Kunitz' translation that I realized what was actually happening in the poem.
The third stanza translation of “The Guest” by Kunitz contrasts from Kenyon's translation by a few simple words. However, it makes all the difference in the world. Instead of writing, “tell me how they kiss you,” Kunitz writes, “tell me how men kiss you,” thus, eliminating my previous puzzlement. Kunitz also uses the word “stroked” to distinguish how the flowers were felt, while Kenyon uses “touched.” Though both words fit the poem, “stroked” implies more of a sexual connotation. To me, this poem was glaringly erotic (in a domineering kind of way), and I feel Kunitz' word choices expressed this more effectively. For example, in Kunitz' translation, he presents the words “torpid,” “sardonic,” and “ardently,” which are all rigid and distinct words. Furthermore, Kunitz chose a more drastic version of the eighth line by writing, “to have us both destroyed,” instead of “plenty of trouble ahead for us both,” as Kenyon writes.
I admit, Kenyon's translation of “The Guest” is more pleasing to the ear. It flows better, almost lyrical. Be that as it may, this is a poem about a tumultuous love affair. Affairs are not beautiful, nor poetic, so there is no need to write it as such. Kunitz captures the bittersweetness, if you will, of the affair. He includes the imagery of the whirling snow and he mentions how she laughed at the man's intention to be with her in hell, but he also notes the turbulence of the relationship and the manipulative behavior of the male figure. The difference in interpretation between Kunitz and Kenyon could perhaps be driven by gender. Kunitz, being a male, knows the ways of men more-so than Kenyon. In the last stanza, Kunitz translates the first sentence as, “Oh, I see: his game is that he knows.” The phrase “his game” contributes to the fact that the man is rather vindictive and enjoys having control.
Even the pronunciation in Kunitz' translation is more severe than Kenyon's. Many of the words, like those I mentioned above, are harsh. If one were to read the poem aloud, the obvious roughness would be found in the pronunciation of many hard consonants.
Unquestionably, a translator's point of view can change a poem in great measure. Kenyon's translation of “The Guest” rolls off the tongue better, but fails to capture the true nature of an inappropriate love affair. I found Kunitz' version easier to comprehend and more accurate in terms of language.
After reading the two different translations of “Hearts Memory of the Sun” I personally feel Kunitz’s translation was a stronger translation than Kenyon’s. I believe the overall tone of the poem is meant to be somber and cold. Therefore, when Kunitz uses words like “sallow” and “scarcely” I feel that these more accurately depict this tone than Kenyon who chose “yellow” and “lightly.” You still get the same image, yet the tone of the different translations is very different. Yellow doesn’t have the same dark connotation that sallow does. Also the last line in the second stanza is another example of this. Kenyon translates this as “not ever!” To me, this line instilled a sense of anger when I read it and it didn’t seem to really fit with the rest of the poem. However, the translation of “oh, never!” keeps with the overall theme of despair. Even the punctuation (the comma after oh) really adds to the sadness of this line; almost as if the person is sighing. I also like the final two lines of Kunitz’s translation better than Kenyon’s. Kunitz’s lines seem to flow better when you read them and I think it also adds a sense of wonder at the end of the poem. The choice of “night unfolds the winter” is a much stronger choice of words than Kenyon’s translation which doesn’t really stir up any emotion when you read it. In the intro, Kenyon says that the integrity of image is her main consideration and speaks of preserving it over structure and all other aspects of the poem. Yet I feel Kunitz did a better job a creating an image for the reader. I got a much better mental image and connected much better through Kunitz than Kenyon.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference in the two poems is Kenyon translates this poem from a first person point of view whereas Kunitz is from a third person perspective. Its not a very obvious difference when you read the poem, but in the opening line and again in the thirteenth line, Kenyon uses the phrase “my heart” whereas Kunitz says simply “Heart’s”. This may or may not be why I connected more with Kunitz but either way I think “Hearts” is the better of the two. I believe it was said in class that less is more. I know Kenyon is trying to preserve the image that Akhmatovah originally intended, but I think Kunitz’z version is much stronger and ultimately makes the entire poem stronger.
This is a little off of the prompt but does anyone understand why the eleventh and twelfth are included in the poem? I really don’t see the connection and I don’t like that they are included in the poem. It doesn’t have to do with the translations but more that I think it takes away from the image Akhmatova has been painting throughout the poem and I believe the poem would be better if these two lines were not included or changed. If anyone agrees or disagrees please respond.
Prompt #1
ReplyDeleteKenyon wrote, “Because it is impossible to translate with fidelity to form and image, I have sacrificed form for image. Image embodies feeling, and this embodiment is perhaps the greatest treasure of lyric poetry. I agree with what Kenyon said. To me, what is a poem without emotion, without feeling, a story or other meaning behind the words placed in a poem? In the same respects, what is rap or R&B music without true emotion or feeling behind the lyrics? This is one quality I look for when listening, reading, or writing poetry or music. Yes, structure and form are good things to have when writing, but sometimes the best work comes from free writing. Those things that are structured and formed a certain way would be nothing without the story or feeling behind the words. One of her translated poems shows how imagery can link an emotion to which the reader can understand.
One poem that shows imagery is “Heart’s memory of Sun” originally writing from the poet Anna Akhmatova. As a reader may read, they may not get to the bottom of what the poet is hinting at. With this poem, it’s not just about the changing of a season to another and the sadness one may feel. It’s more about a women saddened and maybe even mad about a relationship gone sore or bad. Some imagery in this poem include: the memory of sun weakens in my heart. I feel that she is referring to her lost lover. She goes on to talk about the grass turning yellow. Here I think she is talking the relationship changing and not in a good way. In other aspects she refers to a canal freezing and not having its natural flow, which to me is her relationship coming to an end and as she put it, “Nothing will ever happen here—not ever.” She knows it’s the end and nothing will guide them to make that relationship better and feels saddened about being alone. Other imagery includes: winter being darkness, the snow flakes being blown lightly, and the willow opening a transparent fan. Kenyon associates the changing of the seasons to her relationship.
The association of a season and a relationship is interesting. This here is understandable because when you think about it relationships follow a pattern like seasons. During seasons there is great weather and at many times not good weather and it can carry on for a long time. Also there is a cycle and it is constantly starting over. We can say the same about relationships. You have your great times and bad times. The cycle continues to happen. In accordance to appearance, I think Kenyon put in my mind at least the first couple times I read the poem, what does winter have to do with relationships. She said, “What’s this? Darkness?” I feel what she meant by this is that she will be alone during the winter and it cold and no one will be there for her. I can agree with Gumilev when he talked about Acmeism. Yes, a rose is beautiful all by itself, but looks can at times be deceiving. The appearance of the snow and winter in general is a beautiful thing, but the snow is covering everything up. As snow sits and sits it becomes dirty. Then there is a new fresh white sheet put on top of it. All may seem well until the final straw is met, which can happen in a lot of relationships.
The images do succeed this poem. When you think about it, just the fact that Akhmatova was able to think in a different way to discuss a relationship and not just be straightforward with it. She was about to associate with something I would have never thought to. I really liked stanza’s five through eight and stanza’s 11 and 12. I liked stanza’s five through eight because a relationship can be like a flowing canal going in the right direction and looking beautiful while doing it. As it freezes and no longer flows it has lost its beauty. I also like stanza 11 and 12 because she has to come to the realization that it over and is happy that she wasn’t his wife because it would have been a harder transition to get over him. This was a well put together and thought filled poem.
"Heart's Memory of Sun"
ReplyDeleteUpon reading these two translations, I found myself preferring the Kunitz version.
The two translations provide differing themes that most prominently relies on various word choices. Kenyon's translation is much more temporally present; this is apparent with words such as "yellow," "early (flakes of snow...)," "already (the narrow canals...)," "water freezes," and "first(night of winter)." In effect, these images seem more autumn-like than winter, or at least the transition of one into the other.
In contrast, Kunitz's translation uses words that are must less present, things have been this way for a while. For instance, rather than just yellowing grass, the grass is a sickly yellow ("sallow"); the snowflakes are not "early" but "few;" while "already" implies the canals have only just stopped flowing, Kunitz has no such word, and instead chooses "frozen" over "freezes" to again suggest that this is not new. While the word "empty" creates a sort of apathy, "bleak" provides a stronger, more dismal emotion. "Bare-boned" quite obviously creates a more death-like image while again, "transparent" is almost an apathetic lack of emotion. "What now" is the only hint of temporal presence, as if the speaker is suddenly surprised at finding herself in the middle of this. The choice of "night unfolds" rather than "first night" allows for the interpretation that this is indeed not the beginning of winter but a perpetual winter.
The consequence of these temporall differences is that Kunitz's version is much bleaker; for Kenyon, a "first" night of winter implies there will eventually be a last night, while Kunitz's version offers no such hope.
As for the style or structure of the poems, it is clear that Kenyon chose to approach it in a simpler way. She chose to focus more on the images and their direct portrayl to the reader. However, I think it is a mistake to say that a translater can have images or structure but not both. Kunitz's images are just as strong if not stronger because of his focus on word choice. An example previously mentioned is "yellow" - a simple color - versus "sallow" - which adds a sickliness to the simple color. I think in effect that Kenyon's version is over-simplified and adds an air of naivety to the poem while Kunitz adds an intriguing complexity to the bleakness of his version.
I think it is this complexity that allows lines 11 and 12 to sit better in his translation. A reocurring theme in much poetry is that nature's seasons mirror the seasons within a persons life and relationships. Lines 11 and 12 are clearly a turning point of the poem, and, in Kunitz's translation, provide for a sort of acceptance of this perpetual winter - in both the world and the speaker's life - in the last stanza. To me, the use of an exclamation point after "perhaps" adds more of a positive emotion (as much as it can be) that creates this very acceptance, rather than a negative one. Consequently, the choice of the word "unfolds" may also be more positive, in that it may not be referring to the beginning of winter but may be unfolding towards the end of this winter.
In Kenyon's translation, these lines (11 and 12) seem somewhat out of place, because this turning point goes right back to a similar repetition of the beginning of the poem within the last stanza.
The opening line of Kenyon’s translation of “Heart’s Memory of Sun” immediately creates a more personal atmosphere of the poem with her use of, “weakens in my heart,” instead of Kunitz’s translation that begins with, “heart’s memory.” I feel that Kenyon’s beginning catches my attention in a much more effective way than Kunitz’s. In the next line, the image that “early flakes of snow” creates is interesting in that it can vary from reader to reader. One may picture a thin sheet of snow covering the ground; another may imagine the wind blowing around a light flurry because she uses the words, “lightly, lightly.” Kunitz writes “a few flakes,” not even mentioning that it is snow. I also like her use of punctuation and wording. For instance, “Already, the narrow canals have stopped flowing; water freezes.” She seems to be explaining a pause in life itself – “stopped flowing…water freezes” seems more abrupt and definite in comparison to Kunitz’s “no longer flow…are frozen over.” I sense more sadness and darkness in the Kenyon translation, overwhelmed with a chilling death as winter seems to be settling inside of her and in the outside world. The following line – “Nothing will ever happen here” – is the only line that is exactly the same in both translations. I am inclined to believe that there is an importance in this line, an emphasis, again on the dark and bitter solidarity of this poem. The image presented in the next stanza is beautiful; I am intrigued by the use of a willow and her mention of no longer being a wife. I love the use of the “empty sky” and “a transparent fan” because the emptiness is still there, still able to be seen and felt. Kunitz translates Akhmatova saying, “Better off as I am, not as your wife” where as Kenyon writes, “it’s a good thing I’m not your wife.” The enjambment in Kunitz starts the line in a more positive light, using “I am” but changing in the next line with the use of “not…” and Kenyon’s translation is the opposite in that she says “am not…” in one line and continuing to say “your wife” in the next. There is more suspense in Kenyon’s enjambment because the reader doesn’t know what she is not until the next line is read; Kunitz presents more of a twisted interpretation because he says “I am,” but that am is “not your wife.” He also translates her being “better off,” which I think generates a sense of confidence, instead of “a good thing” as Kenyon translates. The use of enjambment in the next stanza in both translations is creative as well. Kenyon’s, “And this may be the first night (next line) of winter” creates a similar ambiance as Kunitz’s, “This very night unfolds (next line) the winter.” I like the use of “unfolds” and the transition into the actual unfolding…of winter. I enjoyed reading Kenyon’s translation more than Kunitz though the differences are interesting and influential. Kenyon’s translation, as I mentioned earlier seemed much more personal than and not quite as dark as Kunitz’s.
ReplyDeleteAlexa Fontana
ReplyDeletePrompt #1:
In prompt number 1, I agree with Kenyon statement. I believe that as she said, "Image embodies feeling, and this embodiment is perhaps the greatest treasure of lyric poetry." I find that through literature, I am able to better understand the reading because of the images the writer creates through word choice and symbolism. In my opinion, a well-written work has the ability to paint a vivid picture of the scenery in my mind. I noticed that Kenyon's poetry used strong imagery and because of the imagery it had the ability to give me a better understanding of the poetry.
In Akhmatova's 3rd poem, I find that she successfully uses the details of nature to bring the reader into the poem. She begins by discussing the skis and then she leads into the second line by explaining the senses of the sky. In the third line, "In the dark blue sky the moon is red", she paints a picture in my head of what the night sky looks like in her eyes. Through the line I am able to imagine a sky that is a deep shade of blue with a moon shining brightly the corner. The moon is so bright that it appears as if it is a deep shade red, like the color of a bright flame burning in a fire.
The poem continues, "In the windows of the palace burn", I found this line to be in regard to the brightness of the moon. Because the moon was such a bright and vivid color of red, it gave the illusion that it could burn brightly through the windows as if it were a flame or fire. The color brings symbolism into the poem. I think that she uses symbolic meaning of the images in this poem because there is room to include my own assumptions to discover what I feel is the ultimate meaning of the poem. However, I do feel that the author uses literal images as well. I believe this because it is necessary to bring literal images into the poem to show the true description of nature.
The images that Ahkmatova presented in this poem successfully provided the pictures that were necessary to form my opinions on the poem. Through her descriptive use of nature and the outside world, she paints a picture of the night sky in the winter. Although the ground is cold and covered with holes of ice and snow, the brightness of the moon is hot enough to warm the night and to melt around some of the snowy areas. She cannot see a path laid out in front of her or anywhere for herself to turn because all she sees is the iceholes. Through this poem I was able to use the pictures of nature to relate them to other areas of the world. However, I found some confusion in the final two lines "Shelter the black grackles, black grackles among your snowy branches." She uses the repetition of the words black grackles to strengthen her point.