In this paper we attempt to prove that a reasonably literal translation of e.e. cummings is both more literary and adequate than a free one. Since cummings' poems are a paradigm of literariness achieved by means of the transgression of the norm, we believe that his break with typographical, syntactic and morphological conventions must be maintained in their translation. We discuss the danger of correcting cummings' transgressions in our translations for fear of the effects those "errors" might have on the reader. We also warn against giving an interpretation of those transgressions rather than a translation, as an interpretation will eliminate the effect of the radicality of these poems, will restrict the multiplicity of connotations of the original, and will rob the reader of the pleasure of making sense out of a poem that sounds hermetic at a first reading. Finally, we propose translations for two very different poems with the same subject matter: spring, and we discuss the reasons for our choice of options.