Five Translations

[文瑜]

槿紅鬱鬱凝書房
一字百頁思君想
負笈雲霓黃浪遠
千驚萬顫癡心長
風與你
不凋不散七里銷魂香
淚不盡
落葉有時
歸期啞詩鄉

~文瑜

(Translation One)

It is not this foreign room that frees the exotic tongue
From the purple moon comes my amber song
The poor heart of poor thought of poor wine of poor poorness
My silent story smuggling into the explicit, the show, the fall, the fall
Yet hush! It is a secret secret secret.
Did I mention love?
Did I mention crime?
Did I mention the bitterness of losing tone?
NO.
I say nothing.
Nothing is the feeling nothing is the voice nothing the meaning…
I mean
Nothing
My poor story of adoration of the aged of the known of the grumpy of the sleepy eyes of the shy, the shy, the shy…


(Translation Two)

Susan Sontag suggested that “In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art,”
Going in and out of words
The pen that I was holding on to was turned inside out
Thus going in and out of the pen
Soberly
Bustlingly
J-o-c-u-l-a-r-l-y
Pale and desperate
I could not say goodbye to come the pen
Not the words
The pen that taught me the joy and void of thought
But I have to
Have to leave the period with the drying pen
The pen then taught me that I once reminded the pen to notify myself
I was the pen yet the pen was never myself

(Translation Three)

Should I go or should I go?
Far far away locates the New York
Or just get off the phone
Let us go
I do not know what you are thinking
The thinking in voice in my hand
The thinking in the plastic technology
Then I can think not
I can think not through what I can not think
Then I think through what I think that I cannot think
Anxious is the thinking
Thinking of not thinking
The anxiety of nothing
Such is the ending
Such the wall
Such the floral papers
Shutting down all

(Translation Four)

The crimson shadow of some bottom petals
The solidity of the book wall
You and only you all over the pages
Thinking what you think claims the thought
Heavy works heavy
rainy clouds shifting
yellow billows from my mother’s memory
far far afar
Startles and trembles
The besotted heart is longing
Wind to you
The forever flavor of the night bush
Tearing eyes will shine no more
Leaves fall for the time
When I will be going home
No sound could chant the marrow of cold in warm
in warm

(Translation Five)

The blush of Hibiscus depressed the study in congealment
One word and the word sustaining a hundred pages
Musing over your thinking
While the raining cloud carried my bamboo heavy
While the muddy surf had gone far
Thousands of startle following by millions of tremble
All too long is the beating of a windowed heart
Bid you with wind
With the never withering, never loose fragrance of seven miles honeysuckle
Tearing the never end
For the falling leaves may have seen their times
Yet my date of return will mute a season of words

[ZY]

文瑜:

I appologize to begin my brief comments.

1. I have to assume that you intentionally use a style of broken-up sentences to communicate the sense of a broken-up mind/heart. While that is easily felt, I cannot help feeling that the loss of complete sentence structure also result in a somewhat confusing state of understanding, in terms of what the poem is actually saying.

2. Within each "translation", parts of repetition were also obviously intended for effect. But I almost feel like there is a sense of "over-stating" the underlying feeling or sentiment, leaving little to the reader's imagination or for the readers to ponder.

3. It is extremely hazardous for me to suggest that there are grammatical errors--for a starter the use of the definitive article "the".

Let me repeat my appology for being critical. It is only one man's humble opinion, all from the angle of "constructive suggestion".

Take care.
ZY

[文瑜]

Hi! ZhanYi,

Many thanks for your response and comments. I am happy that you'd been straight and direct. They are precious readings to me. My response to you, therefore, is neither to defend for my work nor to argue against your comments. On the contrary, I think, there might be some useful disscussions, if I may presume.

First of all, I would like to suggest, the English we learn in Taiwan or non-English speaking country is rather rigid about grammar; which is to say, the English used by native speakers is more flexible and the rule somehow different. Forgive my forwardness to assume that you may come from Taiwan because you use "constructive suggestion," which makes perfect sense in Chinese. In English, usually people say: "critical support." But, I like "constructive suggestion" better.

The capitalized beginning of a sentence in poetry certainly does not mean the beginning of a new sentence. It is very common format in poetry writing in the United States and western Europe. You may have noticed this I am sure. Then forgive my noise. There are even poems aiming at no verb at all. The whole poem, no verb. So, "broken sentences" (you mean incomplete sentences?) are not my intention in writing the Five Translations. Maybe, let's say, there are some creative writing conventions that are different from culture to culture. I know many poets in New York who write without any capitalization at all. They think it is a cool thing to do. And being cool is a way of being poetic to them. The way I use sentences is certainly nothing pioneer. It is really just a common expression.

As for the article issue, it depends on which one you mean is not proper in my writing. I might be able to explain a bit. Of course, I can make mistakes and I do all the time. It is interesting that what I learned about the rule of article in Taiwan is somehow different from what I learn in the United States. I am not trying to argue which side is right or worng. Language is always alive and transforming, no?

Oh, another interesting thing is: how could imagination be constrained? I'd like to hear you elaborte more about this point if you are also interested. I find it disturbing (which is a good thing and good feeling in English). I think, imagination should not be 'allowed' in order to happen, as if there should be some thing called the right for the imagination. I mean, how can the imagination be deprived? If it can be, is it still qualified as imagination? There are always some other places that demand and drive the imagination to work. Or are we only try to follow a similar track of reading in order to play our imaginations safe, in which sense the imagination would not have been imagination at all? Um....interesting.

Language is interesting. This conversation means no offense but critical support, too. Oh, I still make all kinds of grammar mistake all the time, even though I'd been studying English for years and teaching undergraduate English majors in the United States. Feel free to correct me. I will be happy and grateful.

For the record, I never mean to say that I am right. I am never just right. But discussions allow many thoughts to happen in an explicit and a more reflective way, no?

Best,
Wen-Yu.
ps. Happy New Year!

[ZY]

Dear Wen-Yu:

1. Personally, I believe we should all be open to criticize, to accept critisism, as well as to defend and to accept defenses, as long as we remain civilized and calm, which we do. So, we are doing good.

2. My critique on your poem does not question the existence nor the use of broken sentences or other devices. My point was (my personal feeling of) the "over-use" of them. I stated that that was only one man's opinion as I realize personal preference and differences in judgement. Persoanlly, I like the kind of careful use of language, sound, imagery, and symbolism a la Frost, Houseman, or Dickinson. But that's personal taste, and my comments of course arise out of that set of preferences.

3. I also do not argue the point about language being alive and constantly transforming. I do think there is a point as to good use of this language as a vehicle for poetry. This relates to my comment on imagination. A poet does not expect his/her audience to be totally free in terms of imagination (then there is no reason for the poem!). We all uses language to lead on, provoke, evoke our audience to understand what we are trying to communicate to them. But we all like them to also actively use their imagination to enrich their reading experience. For such richness, we resort to literary devices such as imagery, sound, sybolism, allusion, simile, metaphor...etc. We don't try to say everything out load because that would lead to a less rich reading experience. Traditional Chinese literary/poetic criticism states this in terms of 以象載意 or 意在言外. The balance between directly stated emotion/feeling/thoughts and indirectly evoked ones (via imagery, sound, metaphor..) of course is a difficult one and again depends to some degree on personal preference. My comments as related to imagination centered on this balance, not the abstract discussion as to whether the imagination of audience can or cannot be restricted.

3. Salute to another college professor, although I very much wish I could be teaching language rather than my dry and uninteresting finance. And also salute to another New Yorker. I was in the city for 7 years, attending Baruch College. NY is still my favorate city in the states.

Have a great new year.

ZY

[文瑜]

Hi! ZY,
um...i think there are certainly more than one way to write and read poetry. but i probably would not choose to subject to one or two principles of poetics and overlook the emergence of any consciousness that could make a difference of a vivid figure. when i read, i am always aware that it is someone who is uttering and making a gesture through language but not overwhelmingly the other way around. i always ask questions about why one tends to write like this or that, what deliberate design might be menaged, and what desired break-through evoked. to me, literature is afterall about human not dogma. you surely can keep your personal preferences in terms of reading and writing, no problem. i can understand that.
best,
wen-yu.

[ZY]

Where does criticism exist in a poetic world without any principles or benchmark (which you termed dogma)?
Total freedom does not co-exist with a sense of balance, form, and structure.
I thinK I must be a good bit older than you are, as my believes sound so conventional and old-fashioned.
Cheers! Let's keep writing is what's important.

ZY