Who is poetry for?  I have heard the notions thrown around that poetry is to be spoken and heard.  But poetry can also be and should be read and sometimes that is the only way I can understand a poem.  Or maybe the title should read ”Poetry is only for the English” (or the language a poem is written in).  I am babbling.  But, today, I have a reason?

Lastnight, Leif and I (and Matt) went to see Daphne Marlatt read at the UofC.  It has a great reading.  I didn’t know who she was before but a very solid poet (as her credentials will speak for) but also a very gracious person, it seemed.  Calgary readings are so different.  They had a FULL bar and everything was free–not to mention a full buffet line.  I had 3 beers and a glass of wine.  Awesome.  Alright, to the point…

Translation is considered to be an art.  When a poem is translated from French to English, let’s say, the original poet and the translator are recognized for their efforts.  I saw a new type of translation lastnight that I had never considered.  They had a woman signing the poems.  It was amazing.  Unfortunately, I do not think they were given commendation for their translations.  It was almost more interesting to watch the woman sign (granted I have not seen it a lot to begin with) because they embodied the poem.  For a more narrative section, I could see how the signer would physically change as she switched between mother and daughter (and other characters). 

This is a really interesting question.  I am fascinated to hear your thoughts about this.  I am not sure I would even want to have anyone sign my poems unless they were given credit.  I was talking to a co-worker about it this morning and she has taken some sign language classes and says that there is no mumbling in sign language.  Everything is about expression and animation.  A new spin on poetry for me, for sure.