Category: Craft (Page 16 of 18)

Although I didn't love this book, it was an interesting project edited by Alan Michael Parker: twenty-two poets were asked to invent a purely fictitious poet and pretend to do a translation of that poet, including an introduction with a life story and why they appealed and a sample poem or two. The editor wanted to explore issues of narrative and translation, to call "into question the axioms of translation and the use of fiction-in-poetry, the work that…allows the contributors to slip between speaker, self and other."

Many of the poets conjured up their ideal (or so it seemed) poet, one of a choice between progressive-woman-before-her-time, political radical, resistance fighter, suppressed refugee, or one of the exploited or insane.

My issue with the result was boredom. If you go to poetry to get inside a living person's idea of themselves or their processing of an experience, or to understand a foreign experience…this might leave you cold, too. It sort of proves how we come to fiction and poetry with different needs.  Also, it proves how hard it is to get away from your own voice: "Readers familiar with the poems of any of these writers will surely find affinities between their self-signed work and the work of their imagined poets; perhaps it is…true that no matter what we do, we cannot run from ourselves."

I'm pretty sure the poets were trying real hard to escape themselves, too.  And then there was the problem of invention: were these poets really all that good at it? A few fictions were hilarious, rarely did they become profound, but mostly they just felt like practicings.

In some cases, pertinent points about translations arose: Laure-Anne Bosselaar talked about how literal to go, preserving the stanza form or rhyme scheme or syllabic count and maintaining the poem's tone. And she showed multiple attempts. Martha Collins talked about the problem of translating emotion, linguistic accidents of meanings over two languages, and how the monosyllabic Vietnamese language "has much less connective tissue than European languages." Judith Hall talked about wimpy translator "mea-culpa" concessions about translation failures but then herself concedes that there is no perfect translation of poetry. Translations metamorphize in keeping, hopefully, with an original spirit. But then she dismisses the "translator's dilemma" to "secondary and debatable scholarship. What the reader wants to remember is not a process but a poem."

Well, that depends upon the reader.

I loved Maxine Kumin's poem "Inge, in Rehab." She talked about voice and the work of enjambments and slang. Overall, I loved the fictions best of Mark Strand and Annie Finch. And I liked Eleanor Wilner's poem "Pandora Novak."

Soon after reading this book, I dug out an old Poetry Magazine issue I had not read, "The Translation Issue" from April 2008.  This was my first reading of Poetry and I loved the format of reading a poem or two and then reading the translator's note on it. You never see the original poems.

David Harsent translates Greek poet Yannis Ritsos and talks about translations being not another version but a re-imagining and how Ritsos poems are "indelibly Greek."

Stephen Edgar translates Russian Anna Akhmatova and talks about the difficulty of forms and rhyme schemes that, when kept, can distort sense. He wonders what should be sacrificed. "A poem is about many things and the literal sense is only one of them." Meaning might only be a hanger for rhetorical or musical features. He feels some poets, like Akhmatova, lose most of their magic in their translations.  He says he first does a literal translations and "them begin[s] the remoulding."

Michael Sells translates Arabic poet Ibn Al-Arabi and talks about playing syntax against line breaks to recreate rhythmic play of syntax against meter. I'm not sure what he means.

Peter Cole translates Hebrew poet Natan Zach and says, "A Zach poem…is both a thing in itself and a demonstration of what makes it that thing…therein lies the challenge of translation–accounting for that aural intelligence as it moves along the lines."

Don Paterson translates Cesar Vellejo and says most "faithful" translated versions are "mere hommage; they really belong to a category of meta-poem."

Finally, this week I finished my new issue of American Poetry Review. I really liked the Cynthia Cruz poems. She teaches at Sarah Lawrence so I find it very ironic that she capitalizes every line of her poems, when everyone in Kate Johnson's class there in 1995 really came down on me hard for being an impossibly outdated conceit. Arielle Greenberg finishes her essay series on the differences between second and third-wave feminist female poets (highly recommended). Tony Hoagland's new poems take on language poetry (is this a lengthy bitch fight between lyricists and language poets?).

In any case, the essay by John Felstiner about translating a near-death Neruda is interesting here in that he talks about how his translated lines "strangely seem like my own creation, speaking not only through me but for me" and he calls this a "foolish kind of occupational hazard." He says, "What's worse, if I turn back to Neruda's Spanish it seems an uncannily good translation of my own poem!"

Translations are so interesting.

When I met with the writers group in Phoenix last month, we decided to read and discuss a craft book and some short stories. For stories, we chose Art of the Story  by Daniel Halpern. None of us loved any of the four stories we chose from the book, or the physicality of the book (which was heavy and contained tiny margins). But the more we discussed the stories, the more we found redeeming about them.

Of those of us who read The Art of Description by Mark Doty, this book didn't fare much better. I think this was mainly an issue of expectation on our part. The book is part of a Graywolf series on craft called The Art of…. I have another installment ready to read, The Art of Subtext.

 I think our group hoping for a book that would break down the how-to craft in creating description in our work (some of us were poets, some were fiction writers, one did non-fiction), instead of a book of explications on poems that utilized description effectively for image making. And even if that was the rubric, I'm not sure such a lofty goal could be achieved in these small pocket books. 

Although I do love Mark Doty in general (his poems, his live readings and the breathtaking book Dog Years) and he is brilliant at mulling over a topic,  we wanted more button-down organization here . I felt like the book was mostly comprised of five essays created for other purposes and a clever glossary of ruminations on description at the end. I did appreciate how Doty pulled in criticisms of lyrical description from certain language poets and his respectful, yet fair minded, response to them, "It's what I do, the nature of my attention…" meaning for some poets, constructing literal descriptions is their way of thinking and that's no more or less valid than someone who  deconstructs as a tendency.

And when doubting the stability of naming things, Doty says, "But we have nothing else, and when words are tuned to their highest ability, deployed with the strengths the most accomplished poets bring to bear on the project of saying what's here before us–well, it's possible to feel at least for a moment, language clicking into place, into a relations with the world that feels seamless and inevitable. It that is a dream, so be it." Which is a solid defence allowing lyric poetry to proceed. 

My friend Christopher and I read and added marginalia to the same copy of the book…mine. We both marked off the line, "The pleasure of recognizing a described world is no small thing." We also both marked this line in a discussion of Elizabeth Bishop, "…her aim is to track the pathways of scrutiny….the poet seems to proceed from a faith that the refinement of observation is an inherently satisfying activity." We also met up at, "Perhaps the dream of lyric poetry is not just to represent states of mind, but to actually provoke them in the reader."

But defenses of lyric poetry may have been beyond the scope of the book and in the process, some dissection of descripting was lost. We also had problems connecting with some of his samples.

There were some hints on effective metaphor-making that my friend and I both agreed on, "The more yoked things do not have in common, the greater the level of tension, the greater the sense of cognitive dissonance for the reader." The book is only 137 pages. We would have liked more of these condensed and practical lessons.

I felt the book gained more traction in this way in the second half, in the glossary of descriptive ideas called "Description's Alphabet" which broke down ideas about beauty, color, contouring, economy, juxtaposition, etc.

Judging by the 2.00 sticker on the spine, I found this book at the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, annual library book sale over 11 years ago. I opted for their "all the books you can stuff into a paper bag for $10" special and came out with many old books such as this, 50 Contemporary Poets, The Creative Process edited by Alberta T. Turner.

Have you ever loved reading a book so much you slowed down the reading of it to make it last longer? I did that with this book from 1977. Turner sent 100 poets a questionnaire to help poets describe their process writing one of their poems. Fifty poets complained that such an endeavor was impossible (imagine a mechanic saying that) or they were too busy (understandable) and fifty others were game.

Says the last poet, David Young:

"I'm aware as I finish this (more fun that I thought it would be) that my discussion in unlikely to change anybody's mind or affect anyone's judgement. To those who dislike the poem, a consideration of its writing at this length can only be ludicrous and vain. But to acknowledge in more words and detail than one has ever used before the intricacy of a process that is painful, joyful, mysterious, and absorbing requires a kind of honesty and patience that may bring a measure of satisfaction both to writer and reader."

I'll say. This book is fantastic on many levels.

1. I learned more from the introduction than I've learned in whole poetry guides.
2. All the poets are from 1977 and you get a good review of late-70s thinking.
3. I haven't heard of most of these poets. Not only a good survey of popular 70s poets, but it reinforces the idea that some poets come and go.
4. All the poets are widely different in how they work allusions, endings, beginnings, metaphor, use of language and how they assemble poems. There's something for everyone here. If you think one poet is an annoying twit, the next one will give you epiphanies.
5. One question is about paraphrasing their poems. It's entertaining to see all the ways different poets freak out about this question. It can't be done! It robs poetry of its special magic powers! (You don't think students do this before a test?) Or paraphrasing is Jack the Ripper to their poems. One of my favorite responses was simply, a poem is a paraphrase.  Wow! Like d'uh: all the paraphrases take longer than the actual poems. Anyway, it's fascinating to see how poets squirm or rejoyce in the questions.
6. Because I have been watching The Mary Tyler Moore Show DVDs all June, I heard every essay in the voice of Rhoda.

I believe this is an out-of-print book but I see many used copies to be found. Enthusiastically recommended!