Poetry!!!

[William the White]

Tranquility - no - but sweet and erotic... This is beautiful...


THE CINNAMON PEELER by Michael Ondaatje



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I were a cinnamon peeler
I would ride your bed
and leave the yellow bark dust
on your pillow.

Your breasts and shoulders would reek
you could never walk through markets
without the profession of my fingers
floating over you. The blind would
stumble certain of whom they approached
though you might bathe
under rain gutters, monsoon.

Here on the upper thigh
at this smooth pasture
neighbor to your hair
or the crease
that cuts your back. This ankle.
You will be known among strangers
as the cinnamon peeler's wife.

I could hardly glance at you
before marriage
never touch you
-- your keen nosed mother, your rough brothers.
I buried my hands
in saffron, disguised them
over smoking tar,
helped the honey gatherers...

When we swam once
I touched you in water
and our bodies remained free,
you could hold me and be blind of smell.
You climbed the bank and said


this is how you touch other women
the grasscutter's wife, the lime burner's daughter.

And you searched your arms

for the missing perfume.

and knew
what good is it
to be the lime burner's daughter

left with no trace

as if not spoken to in an act of love

as if wounded without the pleasure of scar.


You touched
your belly to my hands
in the dry air and said
I am the cinnamon
peeler's wife. Smell me.

..........................................................................

Isn't that such a brilliant declaration of love and desire and happiness?

[thebish]

Bump...

following a brief exchange last night about this khayyam fellow who loved his poems so much he bought the company....

WtW advised me not to trust the translation so much...

which prompts a question...

for me - poetry is ALL about language - the artful use and arrangement and manipulation of words to convey beauty/pain/loss/.......

if you do not know the language of the poet - how can you judge - how can you appreciate?

if you read a translation of a poem from another language - then, with the best will in the world and he best translator - what you are reading is NOT the original poem - it is a whole new poem - and the (new) work of the translator - no?

[Lord Kangana]

Depends whher the translator undertsands the nuances of the language they are translating, and the gist of the poem. I have this bugbear with subtitles for European films, as they are all in American. As my understanding of colloquial French improves (agonizingly slowly) I find myself screaming at the TV "thats not what he/she said!".

I think I've just managed to argue myself round to your point of view there. You win.

[thebish]

Depends whher the translator undertsands the nuances of the language they are translating, and the gist of the poem. I have this bugbear with subtitles for European films, as they are all in American. As my understanding of colloquial French improves (agonizingly slowly) I find myself screaming at the TV "thats not what he/she said!".

I think I've just managed to argue myself round to your point of view there. You win.

It's not just translating the words - as you say - but also nuance - but also it is something less easy to define. you can translate words and approximate meaning - but languages come with so much more.

words have histories and associations that are impossible simply to translate by getting the closest equivalent from another language (the associations simply don't exist in another language - they are broken in translation) - and so - inevitably half of the poem is lost - and the crafting of the new poem is done by the translator - s/he is the poet being celebrated in a translated work....

[William the White]

The same goes for drama in translation. I teach Lorca's play 'Yerma' - fantastic, poetic, moving drama - in my module called 'Writers on Writing'. The university library has assembled over the years four different translations of the text - and I own a fifth. While the same play is discernable, the translators have completed five different dramatic interpretations - at least one of which seems almost unsayable by actors.

Also - and i think this is similar - the act of dramatisation of novels/short fiction contains similar dilemmas for the dramatiser. I've done half a dozen for stage and radio - including Tango's favourite, No One Writes to the Colonel (for R4). You wrestle constantly with the master-text, cutting, re-ordering, inventing, merging - above all, you have to achieve dramatic literacy - it has to be able to reach its audience as drama rather than animated literature. And, to do that, you need to take some liberties. While hopefully remaining true to the original.

[TANGODANCER]

Bump...

following a brief exchange last night about this khayyam fellow who loved his poems so much he bought the company....

WtW advised me not to trust the translation so much...

The Iranians seem reasonably happy with it. On what alternative does friend WTW base this obsevation? You see I have no idea about the original language so I have to trust Fitzgerald, but, unless WTW (who I'm including in this conversation of course) understands eleventh century Iranaian, why is he so sceptical? Is he taking the word of others?

[thebish]

Bump...

following a brief exchange last night about this khayyam fellow who loved his poems so much he bought the company....

WtW advised me not to trust the translation so much...

The Iranians seem reasonably happy with it. On what alternative does friend WTW base this obsevation? You see I have no idea about the original language so I have to trust Fitzgerald, but, unless WTW (who I'm including in this conversation of course) understands eleventh century Iranaian, why is he so sceptical? Is he taking the word of others?

I don't know - you'd have to ask him!

[TANGODANCER]

Bump...

following a brief exchange last night about this khayyam fellow who loved his poems so much he bought the company....

WtW advised me not to trust the translation so much...

The Iranians seem reasonably happy with it. On what alternative does friend WTW base this obsevation? You see I have no idea about the original language so I have to trust Fitzgerald, but, unless WTW (who I'm including in this conversation of course) understands eleventh century Iranaian, why is he so sceptical? Is he taking the word of others?

I don't know - you'd have to ask him!

I just did, by including him in the conversation. I await his reply with interest.

[William the White]

Bump...

following a brief exchange last night about this khayyam fellow who loved his poems so much he bought the company....

WtW advised me not to trust the translation so much...

The Iranians seem reasonably happy with it. On what alternative does friend WTW base this obsevation? You see I have no idea about the original language so I have to trust Fitzgerald, but, unless WTW (who I'm including in this conversation of course) understands eleventh century Iranaian, why is he so sceptical? Is he taking the word of others?

I don't know - you'd have to ask him!

I just did, by including him in the conversation. I await his reply with interest.

If we go back earlier in this thread you'll see from the beginning that I have mixed feelings about Fitzgerald's work - indeed my first post I think when you raised it - praised some of his efforts as truly effective. Others are in victorian archaicisms that get on my nerves. The rhythm is repetitively thumping also, sand the rhyme scheme restrictive. Scholarly work shows that Fitzgerald was anything but meticulous in representing Khayyam in a Khayyamesque way - but he certainly did a good job in making his work accessible to a victorian public and it has endured since, and is certainly easier to swallow than gumph lkke the Light Brigade. I've seen - indeed, used to own - Robert Graves' version, though that was surrounded in controversy also, I can't remember exactly what, but also to do with authenticity, and is too ornate for my taste.

There are others that i don't know. So, to concede, Fitzgerald's work is a late Victorian version of Omar Khayyam, with the poetic virtues and vices of that age. But I don't know of any rival translation that can claim both authenticity and poetic nuance as described above. And he's certainly fine to be going on with.

[Prufrock]

UUUUUURRRRGGGGGHHHHHH Translation theory? Really? I thought I'd escaped from that forever. I hate you all. That is all.

[William the White]

UUUUUURRRRGGGGGHHHHHH Translation theory? Really? I thought I'd escaped from that forever. I hate you all. That is all.

Seriously, Pru, give us the benefit of your academic insight - I'd be really interested...

And when are you going to see 'Feet'? I'm there tonight doing a pre-show in conversation with David Thacker and co-writer...

[TANGODANCER]

Translation from one language to another often doesn't change exactly, either in word or meaning. Take " Good grief, Give over" etc in our own language. Two Spanish expression come to mind: Con Grace del Dios (literally "With/by the grace of God) Spaniards use this, with a sardonic smile, to mean, "I should be so lucky". A more baffling one is "No hay de que" , literally, "There is of nothing", when they mean "think nothing of it".

Unless there is an alternative translation to Fitzgerald's to compare with, how do we know exactly in what way he falls down? You see, I'm struggling to find what exactly is Victorian about his work? I'm not just arguing for arguing's sake here, but 'd like to see comparisons to make your case.

[thebish]

Translation from one language to another often doesn't change exactly, either in word or meaning. Take " Good grief, Give over" etc in our own language. Two Spanish expression come to mind: Con Grace del Dios (literally "With/by the grace of God) Spaniards use this, with a sardonic smile, to mean, "I should be so lucky". A more baffling one is "No hay de que" , literally, "There is of nothing", when they mean "think nothing of it".

Unless there is an alternative translation to Fitzgerald's to compare with, how do we know exactly in what way he falls down? You see, I'm struggling to find what exactly is Victorian about his work? I'm not just arguing for arguing's sake here, but 'd like to see comparisons to make your case.

I am merely asking whether in saying you like Khayyam's poetry - what you should ACTUALLY be saying is that you like Fitzgerald's poetry.... Khayyam's poetry is not accessible to you - you are not reading his work - you are reading Fitzgerald's work.

it is not a criticism either way - just a question about who should get the tribute you give to it....

[TANGODANCER]

I am merely asking whether in saying you like Khayyam's poetry - what you should ACTUALLY be saying is that you like Fitzgerald's poetry.... Khayyam's poetry is not accessible to you - you are not reading his work - you are reading Fitzgerald's work.

it is not a criticism either way - just a question about who should get the tribute you give to it....

Not so. Fitgerald translated, to the best of his ability, Khayyams work. He didn't write his own poetry, just a translation of Khayyam's. I like the works of Omar Khayyam as translated by Fitzgerald, just as you preach from a Bible translated from the original. Khayyam's Rubaiyat is and has been the subject of controversy worldwide and been translated into umpteen languages. You see it as you see it. The original thing, the themes, the feelings, the observations and philosophy is Khayyam's work, whichever way anyone wants to interpret it. In my first book, Moro, I used Khayyam's poems as a basis for the story. I also attributed my sources to the version published by Medieval Sourcebook, Source, Harvard Classic Series, 1909. I have been an admirer of the Rubaiyat for many years. I've had my present copy since it was published in 1992 by Magna Books. It's still in the dust jacket and like new.

Whichever way you want to see it, I like Omar Khayyam. Nothing will change that. Fitzgerald was but a messenger of his words. All in my opinion, of course.

[Prufrock]

UUUUUURRRRGGGGGHHHHHH Translation theory? Really? I thought I'd escaped from that forever. I hate you all. That is all.

Seriously, Pru, give us the benefit of your academic insight - I'd be really interested...

And when are you going to see 'Feet'? I'm there tonight doing a pre-show in conversation with David Thacker and co-writer...

The plan was to go tonight, but I think that looks doubtful at the moment, either next Tuesday or Wednesday hopefully.

As for translation theory, well, it's been two years since we did it, as part of th ecompulsory Classics and Literary Theory module, or Clit theory as we hillariously called it. The reason I hated it was because we studied it through Terence, who 'translated' greek comedy into Roman, however he made large changes to make them relevant to a Roman audience, which is a shame, because Greek Comedy is largely good, whereas the Romans had no discernable sense of humour.

Translation itself; well, you can certainly argue the case that everybody is a translator, both in everyday life, and particularly regarding art. The act of reading is a translation. There is a grey area of where translation stops and (there is a technical word for this, but I can't remember it) 're-imagining' starts. The idea of translation is to transfer the entirety of the work from its source language, into another. We all know however, often a literal translation, especially in poetry, will not suffice, and the translator has to balance literal translation, with getting across the ideas of the original artist. Importantly it is not just about the words. The translator must be aware of many other factors, the social context and also poetic metre. Somebody writing a poetic translation of Virgil for instance, would be well advised to avoid the original hexamter rhythm as it sounds odd in English. Many argue, that the best, and only real way of gettin a good translation is translation into one's own mother tongue, as the knowledge and understanding of idiom needed would not be possible otherwise.

The grey area I mentioned before is always an interesting one. Translations don't have to be from one language to another, modernisations can be argued to be translations. Romeo and Juliet, the Leo Di Cappiucino one falls, in my view, just on the side of translation (I imagine TD may well disagree ), West Side Story, on the other side.

Essentially the idea behind the 'art' of translation is to convey the meaning of the original author as closely as possible, however a perfect translation is never possible, some would argue even the author himself could not perfectly translate his own work. The copy of 'Brave New World' I mentioned the other day has an interestin preface. The cynic might say that, in saying he had not changed the text at all, Huxley was just being lazy and wanted some free cash, though his reasoning that "Its defects as a work of art are considerable; but in order to correct them I should have to rewrite the book - and in the process of rewriting, as an older, other person, I should probably get rid not only of some of the faults of the story, but also of such merits as it originally possessed.". Even his own 'translation' would no tbe perfectly true.

Bish's question to TD is interesting. Should TD be grateful to Fitzgerald, or Khayyam? If it is a translation well done, then both. The better Fitzgerald has done, the more closely what it says to TD is what Khayyam intended it to say to his audience.

My own view is a good translation must focus not only on the the words, but on all areas of language, and it must try translate the meaning as closely and as relevantly as possible. If a literal translation is possible, then great, but it should not be sought at the expense of the greater sense.

[TANGODANCER]

Everything in all forms of the arts is down to personal interpretation. The basic are what we try to grasp, because few of us will see things alike. El Coronel is a prime example: WTW sees it with all its nuances and reasonings about life, when in actual fact the basic story could be told in a couple of sentences. The poor old guy just waits for a pension that is never going to come. He's resigned to the fact but just keeps on battling. The last part of the story sums it all up when his wife asks what they're going to eat when nothing's left. He replies, in the last words of the story.."Shit". The rest is just about life that makes him say that. That said, I first read it in Spanish and had some of its reasonings explained by a Spaniard. There are differences.

[thebish]

I am merely asking whether in saying you like Khayyam's poetry - what you should ACTUALLY be saying is that you like Fitzgerald's poetry.... Khayyam's poetry is not accessible to you - you are not reading his work - you are reading Fitzgerald's work.

it is not a criticism either way - just a question about who should get the tribute you give to it....

Whichever way you want to see it, I like Omar Khayyam. Nothing will change that. Fitzgerald was but a messenger of his words. All in my opinion, of course.

(sigh) nobody is trying to get you to dislike Omar Khayyam - I really don't know where you would pluck that one from.

my point is simple - and not controversial - and contains NO judgement whatsoever of Khayyam's poetry - I am not talking about liking or not liking.

here it is again..

poetry is 100% language - its nuances, its hidden meanings/double meanings/associations through the culture and traditions and histories of that language.

words can be translated - aprroximately - but the 99% of meaning/association and steeped-in culture that inhabit the words of any one particular language CANNOT be carried over to another with mere translation.

to get anywhere near (and still not there in my opinion) you have to MORE THAN translate - you have to attempt the whole project again - and at best you get a paraphrase - an interpretation

the new thing that you get is inspired by the original - but it is NOT the original - it cannot be

hence - in some ways it is a new work with a new poet.

(to even begin to translate poetry you have to be a poet yourself - I believe - you cannot simply be a translator.)

[boltonboris]

Bish, did you recommend this to Tango, so you could argue with him about it?

[thebish]

Bish, did you recommend this to Tango, so you could argue with him about it?

the very idea!!!

[TANGODANCER]

Bish, please stop lecturing and cut out the sighing bit. .It's very boring and a bit insulting. I can actually, on a good day, spell Mississippi and recite my twelve times tables. Hard to believe I know, but true.

To start with you've stated often enough that you know little of Khayyam except stuff you've been asked to quote at weddings. Now , suddenly you're lecturing me as to who I should credit his works to. When somebody asks you to do the reciting bit by Khayyam, do you ask them do they really mean Fitzgerald? Shall I ask WTW if he's fluent in Spanish or does his admiration for Gabriel Garcia Marquez stem from the English translation? What's the difference? I'm sure I don't know. If Fitgerald had tried to pass his translations off as his own poetry he's have been sued as a fraud. He didn't do that. He translated the works of Khayyam and brought a great and respected poet to the western world. What more explanation is needed?

I think this is the part where you now accuse me of having a hissy fit. I'm actually laughing my bollocks off.