"Linguistic conventions and the literary conventions most closely bound to them, such as meter, rhythm, and rhyme, are notoriously difficult to reproduce in another language. But devices of strucutre and plot, techniques that most of the Western literatures, at least, have in common, and these easily cross linguistic boundaries" (Keesey 270).
Before reading this quote, I had never thought of this before, but it really makes sense. I think if you know another language, such as Spanish or French, then you will be able to write better. I thought that writing poetry with rhyme and other literary technquies in another language was the same as writing in English.
Keesey also mentioned "like conventions of language, they have meaning only to those who have learned them" (270) and I would have to agree. Put yourself into the shoes of a foreign person who was writing poetry. I, for one, would not even know where to begin because I do not know their language or meaning of words. On the other hand, if I knew the language, just as I know English, then I would be able to understand why they maybe used that comma, semi-colon, or repetition.
Do you think that intertextual criticism is only appreciated by the people that know their language?
So, what if we did an intertextual criticism of "Life is a Dream" since it was translated from Spanish into English. Would we understand the Spanish meaning that was translated into English since we are not familiar with that language? I read the play in English, as we all did, but what if we compared it to another Spanish play? Would the result or criticism be the same as if we compared it to an English play?
I think that intertextual criticism is very interesting because it makes the reader think that "poems do not imitate life; they imitate other poems" (265).
Click here for the course web page devoted to Keesey.