For both Bidart and Galassi, what’s the similarly  between their appreciations to poetry?

From my understanding, Jonathan Galassi is  widely known for his publishing and translating of Italian poetry (I did read additional information and found that he is a poet himself). Although many people compliment his ability to translate poetry well, I wonder if there is anything that is “lost in translation”? Often times there are things that do not translate to English directly, and poetry is so heavily dependent on structure and form, are there moments when what the original author intended is lost in the English translation, such as emotion, tone or even message?

Bidart’s characters are initially appalling. But by the end of each poem, in a crazy, distorted way, they seem to make “sense.” Is that what makes these two poems so powerful?

In Bidart’s bio, it says he succeeded in making Herbert White human. As disturbing as the poem was, I can’t help but wonder if Bidart was not just trying to allow us access into the head of a psychopath. Perhaps he was trying to highlight the lowest depravation and decay of society to remind us all that this still exists and can be found anywhere, even in the life of a seemingly average married mad with kids.

There is no argument that Bidart’s “Herbert White” is, although rather unspeakably disturbing, a masterpiece with regard to storytelling and humanizing what would be the personification of evil.  In this manner, it is definitely possible to say that the poem was a success, especially as Bidart’s attempt to describe the antithesis of himself. This was likely a successful adventure on a personal level, causing Bidart to fully understand himself before he could understand his opposite, but I wonder if it is an equal success in the grander scheme of things. That is, is there purpose in exposing people to something so dark and gruesome? Does the humanizing of Herbert White improve the reader’s capacity for understanding (or improve them in some other respect), or is that effect reserved for Bidart himself?

The different pieces between the two authors not only show how important word choice is in poetry, but also show how important visual aesthetics are. However, if read aloud, it becomes difficult to truly show the message within the visual aesthetics. WIth that said, which form of poetry should have more influence on the the reader: the written or spoken version?

Why did Bidart choose to write this poem from the perspective of a woman?  Anorexia nervosa and bulimia are more common among females; however, many men also suffer from eating disorders.  Did he choose to write the poem from a female point of view out of ignorance of eating disorders among males, or was there another reason for this decision?