Wow, Philip, I don't know. And haven't read them for years, so can't
say. My interest in Ahmad was in his Introduction, which I borrowed
heavily from in my discussion of ghazals before going on to discuss
Thompson & Webb (for anyone interested, in one of the essays in Lyric /
Anti-lyric), wherein he lambasted the earlier attempts in english to
construct translations in rather weak rhyming couplets. I do think, as
Mark suggested, that from the experience of trying their hand at the
translations, Rich & Harrison found a way into expanding their own
poetic possibilities.... & so at least later they gained something
positive from what Ahmad taught them of the form.
Doug
On 10-Feb-05, at 9:49 PM, Philip Mead wrote:
> this has been interesting, Doug. But does anyone feel, like me, that
> Ahmad's 'transliterations' are often, if not usually, much more
> 'poetic' than the various translations by the (North American) poets?
> Ahmad's lines always seem to me to have what must be the strength,
> directness and astringency of the Ghalib, but which tend to get
> poeticised in various ways, not least formally, in the translations
> or adaptations. The variations in length, parenthetical alternatives,
> grammatical oddities, etc of Ahmad's text all seem to me to only
> enhance the formal idea of the ghazal he is translating. The actual
> translations seem so embarrassingly 'poetic' by comparison.
>
> Philip
> --
> School of English, Journalism & European Languages
> University of Tasmania
> Private Bag 82
> Hobart TAS 7001
> AUSTRALIA
>
> + 61 3 6226 2352 (tel)
> + 61 3 6226 7631 (fax)
>
>
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta T6G 2E5 Canada
(780) 436 3320
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
Reserved books. Reserved land. Reserved flight.
And still property is theft.
Phyllis Webb
|