Poet in Intercultural Space
by Andrey Gritsman
Iglese italianiazatto, iglese
indiavaliato
What is Translation? On a platter
A poet’s pale and glaring head,
A parrot’s screech, a monkey’s chatter,
And profanation of the dead.
Once upon a time on an inhabited island there lived a poet. He came
from a distant land where nature celebrated four seasons, people had
only one life and the vast fields emanated at sunset that unmistakably
fresh breath different from tired damp smoldering of the land engulfed
by two huge oceans. This is poet’s new motherland or fatherland, to be
politically correct.
There is no going back, no return. Because these vast bodies of water
dissolve invisibly six to ten hours of one’s time, that is of one’s
life. Check yourself next time you are on the overseas flight. For
some reason it does not feel that way when you are flying over the
land. You can see the trembling lights of human dwellings, thin beads
of roads feeding the stripes of highways flowing into the silent lakes
of sleeping cities. They live lives familiar to you. On the other hand
one cannot know life of the ocean, which feeds on the seaweed, on oil
spill and on time.
So, we are separated from the area of origin, from childhood, from
former illusions (having acquired new ones), separated not only by
space, that is comprehensible, but also by time.
This problem of adjustment to the life is not much less for those who
were born and stay in their native land. Since being in this strange
metaphorical trade of poetry implies a certain degree of detachment,
derangement and misfit. Only those who are safely plugged into the
outlet of the familiar literary process, into the system feel
comfortable. Though such an organism goes silent, flat or altogether
dead, if there is a power failure or the system becomes obsolete, at
times not even noticing it itself.
Therefore, we are talking mostly not about a poet of exile (as Joseph
Brodsky was often called, I believe incorrectly), but rather of a poet
of alienation, or more exactly of not belonging.
So let’s step back for a second and take a look at our previous
experiences.
Once
upon a time, everything seemed so natural, accessible, given by
birth. The horizon of the departure displays jagged outlines of sad
cities and muffled sounds of faraway names, Garden Ring in Moscow,
Nevski Prospect in Petersburg, Champ Elysee, tram line in Chernovitz,
French Hill in Jerusalem, Piazza Navona in Rome, etc.
These are real places with their real today’s lives independent from
our nurtured memories and dreams about them. But for us they have
become the same historical symbolic names as any other symbols in art
or history, like Carthage, Bastille, Bosporus, Appia Road, Big Ben.
This detachment of these names symbols close to our hearts occurred
very quickly upon our departure. They disappeared in the morning mist
of the airports and became signs. Nowadays expatriates are mixed
together on the island of Manhattan and acquire a symbol system
different from the previous, but common for all of them now: Greenwich
Village, Soho, Circle Line, Palisades Park, Washington Heights,
Roosevelt Island. Try to put us somewhere in the park by the Kremlin
wall sitting on a bench with beers or in a café in Bucharest, in the
old city Prague or even in Montmartre and we will savor on our tongues
the familiar names of the New York landscape, half of them Indian
anyway.
One can sense this obligatory sigh of pity for the life that is
passing by quickly. It is allowable, forgivable, since we are talking
about poetry. Nostalgia, anyway, is the main topic of lyrical
poetry. Is there any other type of poetry? Or does everything else
belong to a different genre closer to journalism, belle lettre,
theater? A lot of poetry is simply a pop culture, entertainment,
stand-up comedian routine. Good old “good works.” This argument has
nothing to do with the language, well, almost nothing. Language has
its own life. An artist as a source of the energy defines where the
wind is blowing from. That is the wind that is turning pages, at
least of artist’s own collection. It doesn’t matter what we are
talking about in a poem, it is somewhat important how we are saying
it. Most importantly is WHO is speaking.
An artist is put into certain circumstances. How to deal with these
circumstances is the question of creative survival. I don’t subscribe
to the concept of many American poets who dedicate their art mostly to
a self psychoanalysis. Certainly, a poem is first of all a personal
communication, not a group’s platform or expression of a party line.
Incidentally, the latter phenomenon is quite common for a variety of
factions in contemporary Russian poetry. An author should be talking
about himself, being placed into a broader context of his or her time.
Not only into the context of petty crimes of life against the
individual: divorce, sleeplessness, underappreciation by one’s peers,
etc. As Czeslaw Milosz once said about some of contemporary American
poetry: “They wrote as if history had little to do with them.” A
hermetic literary culture, he would say, is a cage in which one spends
all of one’s time chasing one’s own tail.
Relative hermetism of contemporary American poetry
partially explains a significant interest from literary establishment
to the group of respected major poets of foreign origin “with an
accent”: Czeslaw Milosz, Joseph Brodsky, Derek Wolkott, Zbignew
Herbert, Nina Cassian. An increased attention toward these authors
from usually snobbish North Atlantic literary system may be explained
not only by a significant power and brightness of their talents. It
is also related to a curious magnetic effect, an attraction of
American professional literary circles to the creative energy of these
artists, DP’s (displaced persons). Unusual life experience of an
individual artist in the context of complex historical and cultural
experiences of their respective nations provides this magnetic effect
on American literati, who mostly live in air-conditioned academic
reality. That certainly was particularly related to the foreign
artists’ experiences in totalitarian societies.
I dare say that the cult of Tsvetaeva and Akhmatova so characteristic
for some of American female poets is related to the same phenomenon
of borrowing the energy of real life. That cult produced a multitude
of speculative poems related to passions of the saint poet figures.
Unfortunately another oeuvre in order is the topic of Holocaust. Pages
and pages of abstract poems on the subject are produced by the members
of a variety of literary workshops.
Let’s go back to the point of our discussion: what to do with
ourselves in the new “foreign” milieu. In reality it is kind of
inappropriate to write poetry after the age of twenty. It is a sign of
certain immaturity, social inadequacy, being unearnest, if you will.
A prose studded with thoughts and considerations is a different
story. Basically, in a prose, a clever person shares his or her own
artistic life experience with others. On the other hand, a pater
famiglia, greying or sometimes balding, complaining about the fact
that life is passing by, could be a bit ridiculous. But that is what
lyrical poetry is all about. Alexander Pushkin once said: poetry
should be a bit silly.
A poem is a personal communication in the language that is available,
in the space where the author is operating currently. That is language
germane to the circumstances, landscape and to a poet’s life. Sure, a
poet continues to write in his or her own native language, but these
are memory notes, a childhood diary, rewind of one’s own voice,
TV-repeat. After some time a native language may become somewhat
outdated. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with that approach.
For a gifted artist it is a method by itself.
A poem is a composition on a free theme. First of all, it is not a
culture (sic-language is secondary, forgive me this sacrilege). Art
exists first of all in the artist, and only secondary in society. Not
vice versa. You do not speak with lines of the verse, no matter how
professional they could be. You speak a poem with your own direct
speech.
Joseph Brodsky once said “literature
is in the first place a translation of a metaphysical truth into any
given vernacular". One can continue that poetry is probably a
translation of a metaphysical truth on almost a subconscious level, on
the level of “universal grammar” by Chomsky. Brodsky also once
remarked that “an exiled writer…. is hurtled into outer space in a
capsule… and your capsule is your language… That gravitates not
earthward, but outward.” “Poetry has a certain appetite for emptiness…
that is of infinity.”
As I mentioned before, Brodsky was rather a poet of alienation, or
more exactly, of not belonging. To a certain degree, his artistic
position was similar to that of Samuel Beckett and Paul Celan, but not
entirely. Celan obviously was another displaced person, poet in the
intercultural space. For Celan the magic crystal was his enigmatic
inner frozen crystal, a primordial language – breath unit, which is an
idea by itself, or rather in itself, a soul diluted in the body and
revealing itself by breathing. For Brodsky, the idea of soul is more
Donne-like – a metaphorical contemplative soul-idea, soaring above the
world and choosing “any given vernacular” to express itself.
Occasionally, it is “a dybbuck” (a wandering soul in Jewish mysticism)
dropping into a bar or flirting with “some swarthy darling of local
stock, under a floral garland” (Brodsky’s poem “Venice: Lido”). For
those poets “given vernacular” happened to be English or German, or
French for Beckett. In a way, this is an expression of some freedom of
choice. True, this freedom of choice implies a certain detachment and
sometimes even artificiality.
Let’s quote a passage from George Steiner’s After Babel related
to another great displaced person, Franz Kafka. “His (Kafka’s)
loyalties divided between Czech and German, his sensibility drawn as
it was at moments, to Hebrew and Yiddish, Kafka developed an obsessive
awareness of the opaqueness of language. His work can be construed as
a continuous parable on the impossibility of genuine human
communication.” I would say, hence an acute necessity to use an
indirect metaphorical poetic language. As Kafka put it to Max Broad in
1921: “the impossibility of not writing, the impossibility of writing
in German, the impossibility of writing differently. One could almost
add a fourth impossibility: the impossibility of writing”. Another
famous very interesting Kafka quote, which I think is very much
related to the topic is “How do I know what I have in common with the
Jews, when I don’t even know what I have in common with myself?”
On the other hand, a poet in intercultural space is in a great
position. Because he or she has a tendency, a stimulus to abandon
personal symbolism or some group’s professional collegial symbolism.
We have to give the names to the light surrounding us, to the
landscape, to new smells, colors, etc. It is pertinent to quote
Mandelstam’s brilliant passage from his essay where he delivers famous
attack on the symbolist rose. We are talking about Russian symbolism
of the early twentieth century, closely related to the famous French
symbolism. It is also in a strange way related to the practice of
personal symbolism so popular in contemporary American poetry. “Let’s
take, for instance rose and sun, a dove and a girl. How could this be
that none of these images is interesting by itself, but the rose is
only the image of the sun, the sun is the image of a rose, etc? The
images are gutted like scarecrows and filled up with foreign contents.
That is where professional symbolism leads. There is nothing real,
eternal winking, there is not one clear word, only hints, only
something left unsaid. The rose nods to the girl, the girl to the
rose. No one wants to be himself”. Of course, images and metaphors of
Mandelstam’s poetry are complicated, but he knows what he means and
what he is talking about, unlike the typical symbolist method. There
everything is moving around in a dream world of unreal images with no
escape. As Alexander Block once noted about Mandelstam’s art: “He,
unlike me, moves from the irrational to rational.”
Osip Mandelstam named his well-known collection of essays “Word and
Culture” as if counterposing them, and at the same time, combining
them under the same roof. He existed as an author in the state without
a name and he was writing in his own language. As well as Celan and
Brodsky. It is very relevant to the point of discussion to remember
that Mandelstam was one of the founders of Acmeism, along with
Akhmatova and Gumilev and a few others, a short-lived group but a
long-living concept. Mandelstam gives a definition of Acmeism as
longing for the world’s culture. Needless to say, that this is the
path to salvation and path finding for an artist in intercultural
space.
Everything depends on talent. A really creative person cannot
completely repeat what has already been said. Every single creative
experience is a singular and specific art of creation. Mandelstam said
in one of his poems: “Do not compare, the living is incomparable.”
Everyone rediscovers America, so-to-speak on his or her own. To
continue the pun, one can say that everyone rediscovers for himself
the Wheel of Fortune. Every life harbors its own personal tragedy. It
does not require a lot of explanations. The difference of a lyrical
poet from everyone else is the fact that he or she senses tragedy
acutely during the whole longevity of one’s life. The whole issue is
intonation, that is in one’s voice. What matters is the fact that the
author is breathing clear air, “mountain air.” It may be that another
writer has a life of his own, may even have thoughts of his own. But
if he or she is breathing borrowed air, the product of such an art
will be a recycled, repackaged product. Borrowed air is quite typical
for the rooms for poetry readings, workshop rooms. It is
characteristic for the mainstream of any culture. One’s own intonation
is the most important thing. Intonation, that is an internal tone. The
original intonation perhaps is the most important feature that comes
with a talent. Everything else is just well earned.
Poetry in diaspora, in intercultural space is poetry in solitude. Not
poetry of solitude, but poetry in solitude. The condition of a poet in
intercultural space is the condition of an artist who is alone with
himself or herself and the literary language process is going mainly
inside the artist. The surrounding market and landscape are
completely indifferent to radiation of one’s creative energy. That is
the space where different physical and lyrical laws are enforced. And
that is good, it is good to be alone. It is also good to be alone in
a space with others who are alone as well nurturing something
precious, that is placed somewhere in a middle of the chest. Such an
artist has tempting opportunity to be a voyeur. There is something
mysteriously wonderful of not only watching but also experiencing life
around through the prism of alienation. Vladimir Nabokov comes to
mind. The question arises: was Nabokov “an American writer?” Or was he
a gifted and skillful scout who was better oriented on the island than
even the Aborigines? It appears that the ability to view the
landscape from the side, feeling every valley and every grove of the
locale, is a key factor for the author who creates art on the plain of
foreign language and culture. I think many writers of foreign origin
should be approached from the point of view of being such scouts.
Joseph Brodsky, in my mind, was a major original English language
poet, but not an American poet. For that matter, he was not at all
interested in the local American landscape. Maybe with the exception
of a few certainly original and amazing glimpses at Washington D.C. in
the winter or some New England landscapes. But mainly his interests
resided elsewhere, in the general cultural Acmeistic landscape, in
different areas of the artistic habitat. I was at one of Brodsky’s
last public readings in Manhattan. He openly stated that writing
poetry for him in Russian and in English presented two totally
different processes, developing from two different prospectives.
Writing poetry in English for him was similar to solving a crossword
puzzle. In contrast, Nabokov’s interests in the interpretation of
“American tragedy” (this is probably a genuine quality of a fiction
writer) is obvious in his poems and in his prose and reaches its peak
in Lolita. Curiously, nevertheless, Nabokov puts under one
book cover his wonderful nostalgic and somehow “simple minded” Russian
language poems as well as masterful American poems along with chess
problems.
A foreign author actively and sometimes jealously races through the
literary magazines and piles of newsletters produced by the assembly
line of literary industrial complex in the land of origin. But
neither this, nor Internet addiction separates a foreign author from
real surrounding life by the veil of virtual net. Because outside,
beyond the window of literary and literal separation, there is a very
real December with cold subtropical rain and the signs are in English
and even little children on the playground scream and whine in perfect
English.
Well, this is schizophrenia of our everyday life. But it has become
ours, this geoculturally scattered life. And we are supposed to love
it too. Since we do not have any other any more. And if anybody does
not believe in this trying to adjust his vision in vain and to refocus
his inner lens on the distant mirages, he/she is losing the texture of
real life around. And language as streaming water penetrates
everything and fills every possible empty space. Of course, you can’t
walk into the same river again etc. But, amazingly at the site of the
previous river, there is another river flowing elsewhere. There is a
railroad along the river, a little station. And the train is speeding
away rhythmically counting stresses of syllables, counting stanzas.
Alas, so-called required literary
process is important and an exchange becomes possible for artists in
intercultural space on two levels. Everything depends on the critical
mass, in other words, on concentration of several gifted artists in
one particular area, possibly of the same origin, who breathe the same
evening damp air over the same large river in the valley. And also at
night they have full opportunity to howl on the same moon. They have
common external destiny and similar ways of adjusting to the
surrounding culture.
On another level, which is still emerging, other artists are finding
some common spots with other artists of different origins but with a
similar experience of adjustment to the same milieu. This process
creates new exciting opportunities of communicating on the level of
poetic sensibility, not necessarily of the same language and melting
(sic melting pot!) into a new sensibility: into a poetry of English
as a second language. That is not in a condescending educational
sense but in a sense of English as a second language of one’s
poetic soul. The soul actually is always looking for faculties to
express itself.
It is very important of course to sit shoulder-to-shoulder in a café
with your soulmates, get a beer, or two together. Being relaxed and
lowering the tone of conversation tell what’s on your mind, like in
good old times. The Internet, however,
changes the situation somewhat and nowadays one can be talking about
electronic communities. For instance Russian in Germany, Russian in
Urals region, Prague Russian, Jerusalem Russian and Russian New York.
Sort of a literary cybercafe with readings at night or at the crack of
dawn, depending on the time zone and uninterrupted functioning of the
server. The well-being of artists’ communities in intercultural space
depends on the saturation of the cultural space with passion and
sadness. Passion and sadness are energetic vectors or poetry. That is
how cultural noise is born, Mandelstam’s “hum of the times”, which is
a composite of different voices. In our strange sphere of occupation,
poetry, it is usually just a few original voices that is enough, all
one can dream about. Well, thank God.
Emerson, in his essay The Poet calls languages “tombs of the
muses” or “fossils of poetry”. The strolls along the open cemeteries
of various cultures and eras are always amazing and full of quiet
surprises. In addition, cemeteries are usually located in the vicinity
of a city that is inhabited or abandoned. In these cities, we are the
transients, waiting for something, not knowing clearly for what. And
everyone is alone. That is why, alone, one starts talking to oneself
about whatever comes to mind. For instance, mumbling poems.
|