Discursive Essay – Amanda Gorman Poetry Translation
The unifying nature of Amanda Gorman’s poem, “The Hill We Climb” has been made
divisive by the controversy surrounding its’ translation into Dutch by Marieke Rijneveld.
Translation, simplistically, represents an opportunity for international connection facilitated
by the art form of authentic poetry. It allows for an amplification of Gorman’s indispensable
vision of unity to promote progress. The controversy concerns the ethics of possibly
distorting Gorman’s poetic voice through the involvement of identity in translation. However,
through collaboration with other translators and sensitivity readers, as well as a youthful
perspective of the poetry and a shared humanity grounding the translation, an authentic
version of the material can be obtained by Rijneveld. Ultimately, it is more unethical to
deprive a nation of the powerful and poignant messages conveyed through Gorman’s poetry,
over divisive technicalities.
Marieke Rijneveld’s personal identity leads critics to believe that Gorman’s work should not
be translated in our hyper politically correct world. Linguistic identity suggests the native
tongue of the poet conveys the absolute truth, while translations tell versions of it. This risks
the distortion of Gorman’s poetic truth through translation from English. It is believed that
Rijneveld, constrained by racial barriers, would misinterpret Gorman’s poetry, due to lack of
perspective and personal experience of the struggles conveyed in her poetry. This might then
lead to the poetry undermining the perception of issues such as racial injustice. It has been
suggested that a Dutch, black translator would be more suitable to convey the material
concerning racial inequality, as they might provide a more sincere translation. The warping of
Gorman’s voice in an attempt to replicate the resonation of these issues with international
readers, seemed to be too great a risk.
However, the responsibility of translation does not rest solely on Rijneveld’s shoulders. It is
usually a collaborative effort to work around language barriers to maintain the literary value
of the material when translating it. This renders the concern surrounding linguistic identity,
invalid. Gorman’s poetry exudes an intimate form of self expression, as her identity has been
infused into her poetry. It must be considered that Gorman herself entrusted Rijneveld to the
translation, suggesting that she felt that Rijneveld could maintain the literary quality and
beauty of her poetic message, as well as this aspect of her personal identity. Gorman and
Rijneveld are both members of the youth, and each have an artistic passion for literature.
Gorman, naturally, factored this in to her choice of translator, and ultimately chose Rijneveld
who could identify with Gorman themself, through being a young writer. This shared
humanity and fresh, youthful perspective is perhaps what Gorman felt would allow the
translation, and her self expression, to come to life in Dutch. This would enable more people
to resonate with the messages of unity, perseverance and hope littered throughout Gorman’s
poetry, and in this manner create a sense of liberation through her literature, that is so
desperately needed by the world. The art of poetry cannot be governed by constraints of
linguistic identity, but rather through the understanding of a shared humanity. Poetry does not
exist to be politically correct, and therefore its translation cannot be halted by this
chauvinistic technicality. Gorman felt confident enough to hand her vision over to Rijneveld
The unifying nature of Amanda Gorman’s poem, “The Hill We Climb” has been made
divisive by the controversy surrounding its’ translation into Dutch by Marieke Rijneveld.
Translation, simplistically, represents an opportunity for international connection facilitated
by the art form of authentic poetry. It allows for an amplification of Gorman’s indispensable
vision of unity to promote progress. The controversy concerns the ethics of possibly
distorting Gorman’s poetic voice through the involvement of identity in translation. However,
through collaboration with other translators and sensitivity readers, as well as a youthful
perspective of the poetry and a shared humanity grounding the translation, an authentic
version of the material can be obtained by Rijneveld. Ultimately, it is more unethical to
deprive a nation of the powerful and poignant messages conveyed through Gorman’s poetry,
over divisive technicalities.
Marieke Rijneveld’s personal identity leads critics to believe that Gorman’s work should not
be translated in our hyper politically correct world. Linguistic identity suggests the native
tongue of the poet conveys the absolute truth, while translations tell versions of it. This risks
the distortion of Gorman’s poetic truth through translation from English. It is believed that
Rijneveld, constrained by racial barriers, would misinterpret Gorman’s poetry, due to lack of
perspective and personal experience of the struggles conveyed in her poetry. This might then
lead to the poetry undermining the perception of issues such as racial injustice. It has been
suggested that a Dutch, black translator would be more suitable to convey the material
concerning racial inequality, as they might provide a more sincere translation. The warping of
Gorman’s voice in an attempt to replicate the resonation of these issues with international
readers, seemed to be too great a risk.
However, the responsibility of translation does not rest solely on Rijneveld’s shoulders. It is
usually a collaborative effort to work around language barriers to maintain the literary value
of the material when translating it. This renders the concern surrounding linguistic identity,
invalid. Gorman’s poetry exudes an intimate form of self expression, as her identity has been
infused into her poetry. It must be considered that Gorman herself entrusted Rijneveld to the
translation, suggesting that she felt that Rijneveld could maintain the literary quality and
beauty of her poetic message, as well as this aspect of her personal identity. Gorman and
Rijneveld are both members of the youth, and each have an artistic passion for literature.
Gorman, naturally, factored this in to her choice of translator, and ultimately chose Rijneveld
who could identify with Gorman themself, through being a young writer. This shared
humanity and fresh, youthful perspective is perhaps what Gorman felt would allow the
translation, and her self expression, to come to life in Dutch. This would enable more people
to resonate with the messages of unity, perseverance and hope littered throughout Gorman’s
poetry, and in this manner create a sense of liberation through her literature, that is so
desperately needed by the world. The art of poetry cannot be governed by constraints of
linguistic identity, but rather through the understanding of a shared humanity. Poetry does not
exist to be politically correct, and therefore its translation cannot be halted by this
chauvinistic technicality. Gorman felt confident enough to hand her vision over to Rijneveld
