Every word in blood wedding seems to carry calculated, deliberate weight – conveying raw depth of emotion unlike much other theatre. How much of blood wedding’s true character lies within its words? Blood wedding may not necessarily be built upon its words, byt rather the emotion, fire and passion it carries. While english could potentially attempt to recreate this, only Spanish carries the duende this play so relies on – the english could never match up to a culture of passionate music, vivacious dance and fiery food where, according to google, people live life to the fullest. Blood wedding, therefore, is purest in its Spanish form.
Attempting to translate the work, therefore, would inevitably result in a loss of voice. Between the Gwynne Edwards’ and Ted Hughes’ translations, it is already apparent that there is a clear different in not only word choice, but subsequently the emotion and feelings being conveyed, even though both have the same language to manipulate. Lorca’s original writing in Spanish would lose itself in English even if there was a direct translation (or as close to one that could be) because there are just some words and emotions in languages that cannot be conveyed in English – whether that lends itself to the meaning of the word or the simply way it is said. Adapting the play to fit a more modern time, culture, or whatever it may be, results in a loss of the essence of the play. Visual arts are made for the appreciation of self, but literature is made for the appreciation of others – and a translation is simply a different work of literature with stolen words. As a play built heavily upon passion, fire, and fury, what really is Blood Wedding without its original voice?