Poetry Translating as Expert Action Processes, priorities and networks

 Poetry Translating as Expert Action

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Draft 1 Draft 2 Draft 3

Minutes

Fleur

Geoff

Hugo

Irene

Francis

Figure 29. Toen wij: time per draft and translator

5.3.2.2 Processes and priorities from draft to draft

In Draft 1, translators’ actions were broadly similar. All first read through the

source poem to identify rhythm and/or key problems; some logged these in writ-

ten notes. All then hand-wrote what they called a “semantic” or “literal” version.

With four translators (Fleur, Hugo, Irene and I), this incorporated alternative so-

lutions plus notes: see Figure 30. Geoff, however, produced a largely pure-line

Version 1, with few alternative solutions or notes.

Finally, referring to the source poem and Version 1, four translators

(Fleur, Geoff, Hugo and Irene) hand-wrote a second, largely pure-line version: see

Figure 31. I, however, did not, thus reducing my Draft 1 working time.

Figure 30. Toen wij: Version 1 (Hugo, Lines 8–9)