Hmm ... the one about Proust's work might or might not be the point. I'd never actually read anything he wrote, or at least I don't recall having ever done that, so I am relying on summaries on Wikipedia there and it gives me something that might or might not count as conflict. So I do say that you may possibly have a point there
, because I don't like to say that someone has a point without verifying it and I can't really verify it there; thus, going for the middle but veering into the direction of having that point, however slightly.
And as for the translation, well ... I'd checked the poem in the original just to make sure that I lost nothing due to translation mishaps, and I have to say I'm not sure if there actually is a better translation. But really, translating poetry from eastern to western languages tends to be an exercise in either masochism or literary ballet. And honestly, I don't think I can even judge if this one is "good" or "better" or "bad" or whatever else, because though it is not exactly useful here
, for the purpose for which you'd tried to use it
, the translation isn't incorrect or anything so it's mostly just a matter of style and that's just our preferences so there's no "better" or "worse" here.
Anyway, the thing—which the translation provided on Wikipedia might or might not actually make clear, hence why I'd called it "dry"—about the poem is that it relies on a wordplay to deliver something that is in-between a Wham Line
and a Dissimile
. Because yes, the daughters do kill, yes, they do it with their eyes, yes, they aim for the heart, but no, they don't actually hit people or kill them or anything and the whole thing is left rather ambiguous. And when you leave a potential love story ambiguous ... sorry, but I won't believe if you tell me that "no, there most assuredly is no chance for any conflict to be present therein" until I see it for myself (and in this case neither I nor any other reader actually can).
But I'm starting to rant, so I'll stop now.