We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this note. The reason that the old tree/forest/sound adage sticks around is that it's not so easily answered. You think the tree doesn't make a sound, I think it does. Not sure how to reconcile that.

No no, I'm not talking koans. I'm saying, "what does it matter if it makes a sound, if no one is around to hear it?" Also, at this point, it's well understood that we're agreeing to disagree since in my understanding, this is how the conversation started.

And if an audience can't exactly pinpoint the source of a piece's power, but recognizes that it's there- what does that mean for your assertion that we have to understand a work completely (i.e. in the mother language) before it's truly powerful?

No, I never asserted that full understanding was necessary. In fact, I argue that it's not possible. At all. I really think that the spark of your argument is that you don't understand what I'm talking about. For example, the way this conversation has bloomed into an umbrella of all art when I was talking about poetry. Poetry is an art made of fine strokes, subtleties and nuance. Otherwise, it's just language and language on its own isn't poetry.

Interesting that you bring up the Old Testament. Hebrew was not a spoken language until very recently. Instead, it was a temple language. One of the chief ways in which it differs from English, is that English is full of static verbs, for example: "is", which implies no end to existence and no change. Hebrew does not use this system. Instead, it makes heavy use of progressive tenses. Things are always "becoming" in Hebrew. So yeah, the precise words and precise order definitely make a huge difference, especially if one is to translate a language whose very letters have individual meanings.

Yes, the core is important, but I don't believe that the core is the most important thing, but rather the core as presented by the execution. If this were not so, then why is Romeo and Juliet considered great? Hang on, let me re-write it to illustrate: "There's this dude that likes this chick, but she's like, 14? And like, their families have been bitching like, forever? And, um, y'know it's like, about time that Romeo started fucking some babies into some bitch because like, the times demanded it of him? But he totally loves Juliet, because that one time they met? Was the fuckin' bomb. But then there was trickery and shit and crossed stars and then they fuckin died. Ro. Man. Tic. As. Fuck."

Uh, so the core is the same but let's be honest: that execution sucked balls and in fact, it will likely prevent some from getting the full-impact of the story it describes, which is nuanced, which is particular and which is undeniably Shakespeare. To me, translations are at their very best, very good descriptions. I mean, forgive my dramatization, as it is beyond the realm of worst case scenario, but not out of the realm of possibility. To put it another way, "But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks?" can of course be translated as a version of, "what is that light coming through that window over there?" but it lacks the quality that makes it Shakespeare. I would consider that to be less potent. Not to mention, the sounds would be completely different and I think that those particular sounds have their particular drama.

And lastly, regarding The Odyssey- I agree! Homer is a good example. But it wasn't a cheap shot.

I didn't mean that The Odyssey was a cheap shot, I meant the crack about "not using blue". And to me, The Odyssey is worthy of respect and admiration, but I don't find it beautiful. Certainly, it has its power but am I sure that I understand its power as well as I can? No. For you to demand that I should find it beautiful, is ludicrous. Again, I don't believe that we have been speaking about beauty in the same way, which I am fine with, but am curious about. Of course beauty is in the blah blah of the blah blah, but even so, I don't think it's the same for everyone. I do not mean to imply that people have greater or lesser capacities for understanding or experiencing beauty, but I do mean to say that what constitutes the beautiful can be fundamentally different to the point of mutual unintelligibility as seems to be the case here. Then again, you seem to be talking about all art, whereas I was talking of poetry and to a limited extent, painting.

As for your closing, it seems like you are saying that pearls before swine are still pearls and what I am saying is that pearls before swine makes no difference to the swine. While you disagree with me, I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of what you are saying, but it doesn't ring true for me and obviously, my perspective doesn't ring true for you.

I don't know for certain whether or not what you've espoused in this thread have solidified into belief for you, or are ideas that you would like to have challenged and are willing to change. As for my perspectives in this thread, they are my ideas as they are today. I welcome the inevitable change that will come to my conception of what poetry and art are and it may be that I will someday feel as you do, but at the time of writing I do not. I'm glad to get a look inside someone else's mind though and I do genuinely appreciate the conversation.