Terry, sorry to be so slow in replying.  I'd written something addressing several of your points, but it is long lost.  I'll now just answer your question about translation. 

A translator does lots of things the poet didn't do (compensatory techniques, for instance), but the translator does not create the ideas, the relations between elements, the plot or the characters, the movement, ... : all the matter and manner of the poem that hadn't existed until it was written.  It's one thing to tell someone about The Good Soldier, for instance, but a very different thing to have created those 4 miserable people and to have told their story again and again and again (Ford's technique, like the best artist's, is subject as well).


Terry Traynor wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Marcia Karp wrote:

>a painting isn't just paint-strokes, not matter how brilliant; a poem just

>words, ditto.  There are, for instance, many wonderful translators

>whose own writing is just not very good.

I guess I wasn't clear - I mentioned a painting's brushstrokes and a poem's words only as examples, just examples, of the work's components. I certainly didn't mean to reduce the work to those components. As to translators, I'm not seeing what they're an example of.