Jerome Rothenberg at "Poems and Poetics" has posted Robert Kelly's introduction to his experimental translations in 2002 of some 30 of Paul Celan's poetry, entitled Earish, experimental in the sense that what's being translated from the German is not the original poem but something that's "heard". The poem in translation is "heard" by recognizing in Celan's German sounds accessible only to the English ear. (The "Earish" term is given primarily as the sound equivalent of Celan's poem "Irisch" for which the translation experiment was initially begun.) It's the sounds the translator records. The 'sounds' skimmed off the surface-text, however unrelated semantically they may be to the German sources, make the translated poem. It's something Kelly's dubbed "homeophonic": of it he says "By homeophonic translation I mean: listening to the sound of the [in this case German] poem until you can hear it as English-the result, the poem heard, no doubt 'says' a 'different' thing from the 'original.'"
It's an appropriative reading in which, again Kelly, "one listens to the original other-language poem until one hears the sounds of it as somehow one’s own." But it's also a way to write poetry, one that I've tried myself but with more emphasis on the "seen" than "heard". Kelly even admits to having tinkered with "homeophony" in his college days, looking for "heard" sounds in Horace: in any event, he seems to be the first to announce Earish as a new poetics, and Louis Zukofsky, via his translation of Catullus, as the first practitioner. Of course, questions are bound to arise, such as, Is Earish translation or poetry, or in what sense can it be both? Is "heard" a variant of "found" poetry, lifting not lines but sounds instead? Or, concomitantly to the previous question, is the ear to "heard" what the eye is to "found"? And if "homeophonic translation" produces something that may bear little resemblance to its original & can still be considered a stand-alone poem, is "heard" poetry, in fact, a type of literary fraud?
I'll be perhaps the second person, after Kelly or Rothenberg, to defend "heard" poetry as a legitimate art form. I'll defend it primarily as a writing technique that begins in translation, & I believe Kelly himself does, too: "I am setting at naught whatever I may think or even know the original poem ‘means,’ and instead using just the sounds of it (as it sounds in my ears) to batter some sense into my head. Its new meaning." It's precisely as "new meaning" that the product of translation really can be designated a poem in its own right, sounds to be not so much gleaned from an initially foreign text as somehow deterritorialized (in Deleuzian parlance) into an entirely new creation. Celan's German text is a field of pure possibilities where translations seem to arise from tapping into hidden processes (among which 'sounds resembling English words' is one) that are both spontaneous and essentially indifferent to origins. But that's just a theory & at best an interesting aside: how does, in fact, homeophonic translation actually work?
Consider the case of the "heard" poem "All Dying Seagulls Are Broken? Nay." generated from a translation of Celan's "All deine Siegel erbrochen? Nie." (Again, I'm giving Kelly's English version both 'translation' and 'poem' status). The German original gives us the phonic blueprint from which Kelly's version is read, & all that's required is a willingness to read "until you can hear it as English":
ALL DEINE SIEGEL ERBROCHEN? NIE.
Geh, verzedere auchKelly's translation by "homeophony" gives us the following "sounds like" version:
sie, die brief-
hautige, elf-
hufige Tucke:
dass die Welle, die honig-
ferne, die milch-
nahe, wenn
der Mut sie zur Klage bewegt,
die Klage zum Mut, wieder,
dass sie nicht auch
den Elektronen-Idioten
spiegle, der Datteln
verarbeitet für
menetekelnde
Affen.
ALL DYING SEAGULLS ARE BROKEN? NAY.A fairly predictable pattern of "sound" translation emerges in the opening strophe, consisting of no more than a tendency to rearrange a line of Celan's poem— by means of some easily detectable separation or addition moves— into "homeophonic" segments suited to an English reader (like me) with only the most elementary command of German pronunciation. And, of course, little or almost no familiarity with the poem's real meaning is actually necessary: it may even get in the way. Celan's "Geh, verzedere auch", for example, has been transcripted into "Gay verse ether oak" as if the original had appeared as "Geh, verz edere auch", a string of imaginary substantives rather than a complete (imperative) sentence arranged in fairly unorthodox word-order. A line like "hautige, elf-", on the other hand, has been fused into "haughty elf", with "hautige" shortened by one syllable, and a kind of caesural break in the middle of the line obliterated entirely, in order to force a smoother-sounding English phrase. How repetition of a Celan verse line can morph into one "sounding like" English can be the topic of an interesting study in poetic "lines of flight" (more Deleuze).
Gay verse ether oak
see, the brief
haughty elf
hoofing took her:
that the well, the hornet
fern, the milk
knower, when
the mood she tours clock be awayed,
the clock be dumb mood, weed her,
that she nicked oak
then elect throne dear idiot and
speak low, the dottle
for a bitter too for
many take a long dying
often.
As I've said, I regard the "Earish" more a poem than translation. That something intended to be a translation can look like a bona fide poem speaks to me of the primacy of "speech" or orality. Sounds divorced from meaning (or only faintly related to it) can return to a primary language "chaos" against which semantical forces are ultimately helpless. Perhaps the failed chaoskampf in Celan's poetry & life—to be noted in Celan's real German poem— is as good a place as any to free "sounds" or let them live where they seem the most comfortable anyways: at the liminal edges between text and translation, away from enforced meanings. In the face of this radical irreducibility of sound to sense, I submit there can be no appreciable difference, after all, between John Felstiner's 'true' translation of Celan's second strophe, one attuned to real signifying practices (from Selected Poems and Prose of Paul Celan):
so that the wave, honey-and Kelly's own "heard"
far, milk-
near, when
mettle stirs it to lament,
lament again to mettle
that the well, the hornetI'll reserve the next post for an "Earish" poem of my own.
fern, the milk
knower, when
the mood she tours clock be awayed,
the clock be dumb mood, weed her
7 comments:
I have to agree that this is a legitimate way to write a poem (any way of writing is legitimate)—though I don't consider it "translation" in the full sense. (In the narrow sense of translatus as "carried across," it is certainly a partial translation.) It's certainly not a literary fraud! But I wonder if the resulting poetry in English is worth the poet's effort. Certainly it could be, but Kelly's Earish poems strike me as mostly gibberish—fun in the way that listening to vaudevillian gibberish can be fun, but otherwise not very interesting. What legitimacy it has depends entirely, it seems to me, on the original, in a way that full English translations of German poetry do not. Here's my favorite translation of Goethe's "Wanderers Nachtlied," for example, done by John Frederick Nims:
SONG OF THE TRAVELER AT EVENING
Over all the hills now,
Repose.
In all the trees now
Shows
Barely a breath. Birds are through
That sang in their wood to the west.
Only wait, traveler. Rest
Soon for you too.
This is a gorgeous poem in English and as such doesn't depend on the original for legitimacy. It seems to me that the legitimacy of Earish poems depends substantially on the originals.
But this opinion of mine is provisional! I want to see what you've done with in the Earish way....
Joseph,
my position is that "Earish" is more poetry than translation: the text is merely the occasion for a poem. When I do it the eye glances, almost playfully, across a foreign 'source',lifting random phrases, images (where they can be detected even in a foreign language)and letting the roving eye imagine the possibility of sense. I believe even language with which we're barely familiar can yield up poetic riches.
If Kelly's poems seem gibberish it's probably because he had always to weigh the claims of legimate translation against creativity, something he perhaps didn't feel comfortable doing.
If creativity can be conceived in the case of a text that's read only for "homeophony",it must be at least possible to see a poem coming out of it. The 'real' incompatibility of a "heard" poem with poetry, even if proven to exist,doesn't actually seem to post any obstacles to me.
Hidden principles of 'composition' arise only after the fact of a text mined for "heard" properties is established. I think Kelly (imo) has established that fact.
there is an ancient 1960's book
that all English and pre-poetry
Majors were required to read, study, underline ,
high-light
and pass a test on:
I think that it is a "classic" and I bet-chuh that
it has been re:released...
SOUND AND SENSE
seems to me
that
no matter the approach
it is much easier
(& quicker)
to write out of translating
than to
'write down your own bones'
me-thinks that Bob Kelly
has taken these things
into his mind's vast store-house of information
and
has 'sung his own song (s)
thusly and variously via recontextualizing
(without a computer or any predetermined
definition of "what 'it' should be as demanded by The Club...
now,
that it becomes a "style' or an habit becomes boring or
gets into it s own graduate-school course or department is an whole nuther issue...
... or some sue chilly morning here
first one
goodest thing about my art?
is that it is mostly made of wood and/or on paper..
so
I have a steady supply of fire-wood and paper to get the fire going:
after all
after burning something up (to stay warm)
I can ALL-WAYS make something new
no sense finishing anything that is yet in process of becoming ...
just what it is
nice post
nicely commented on
K.
K,
Kelly is almost mystical in inspiration and design. I wasn't surprised to learn of his fondness for Samperi, for example.
yeah...
besides his Kali Yuga and The Mill of Particulars
and The Loom and The Convections and CITIES and
et cetras
try on for sizings/soundings his 1969
The Common Shore
especially in't : The Chiloi
(out of it but most likely this computer will screw up the format which "pins down" the context)
"(....)
o my heart
proclaim
yourself
be a dawn star
when the morning reddens,
o bring all things
to your notice
o walk to the house of everything. (...)."
and, farther into what this poem becomes:
(again, apologies for this computer fucking up the formant)
"(...)
& so the times moved.
Ho Chi Minh, girl
in a blue sweater
did not conceal
her. Masters initiate lore, esquires
of the accepted rose. Pages
of the calendar, king of kings (etc)."
K.
Did you ever read my post on Zukofsky's Catullus?
http://compassrosebooks.blogspot.com/2009/02/louis-zukofskys-catullus-new-york.html
What you get with "pure sound" translation is nonsense. What happens when a skilled writer engages in a re-imagined sequence of meaning in another language isn't, obviously, though the resistance in the new version may present unresolvable difficulties of apprehension.
Zukofsky's mind was so elegant and facile that he was able to construct weird new narratives out of highly resistant applications. Even so, it's a stretch. A kind of demonstration project carried to absurd lengths.
I have no idea what Celan must seem like in German. Presumably, it doesn't sound as clunky as Kelly's version does.
I think Coolidge's work shows better how to treat language synthetically, as if words were "things" instead of true signifiers. He employs them in both ways simultaneously, slipping seamlessly back and forth between signified and non-signified with ease.
Curtis,
I will re-read your Zukofsky piece with great interest now. I recall thinking at the time that Zukofsky must have been pretty generous with his re-inventions of Catullus, whose cut, at times epigrammatic lines require some pretty faithful "translation" work.
The poem as "thing" rather than true signifier is probably a distinction Kelly would've loved to override since he's stuck with calling his pieces "translations". My point is that what you get, in the absence of 'signifieds', is a pure literary creation. I'm presently trying to cull a few verses (via Kelly's "homeophonic" procedure) out of a short passage from Cicero, & it's all I can do to make "sense" out of the "sounds" I've so far generated.
When I last did this sort of appropriative writing (years ago) I scanned an unfamiliar text primarily for recognizible root-words, being more interested in the "seen" than in the "heard". Kelly's "heard" only manifesto makes it decidedly more challenging. My approach was easier because, as you say, the things I saw came pre-packaged with "signifier" potential.
Post a Comment