And just as others had to do for the haiku, Ali now has to fight for the ghazal's structural integrity—its rules and regulations, so to speak—as it passes into English. To do this he must undo impressions built in the 1960's and 1970's, when the form first came to attention in English and when, in general, rules of form were being thrown to the wind.The other is Andy Weaver's:
"That was unfortunate, because the ghazal is nothing if not about rules," notes Ali. "Western poets were then aiming wildly at the exotic, so they wrote the poems they would have written anyway and just called them ghazals."
Technically, the ghazal also has a very strict scheme of internal rhyme and end repetition. I’ll refer you to Agha Shahid Ali’s introduction to Ravishing DisUnities for a better, more detailed (if somewhat condescending) explanation of these aspects, because, unlike Ali, I don’t believe that the lack of these aspects invalidates most English language ghazals. I base my belief on one simple fact: when the classical ghazals are translated into English, the rhyme schemes are always lost, and yet the results are still breath-taking. To completely agree with Ali is to admit that the works of Ghalib, for example, are not really ghazals once they’re translated. Maybe this is true, but the distinction seems unimportant to me...Well, it seems important to me. I'm with Ali: if you want to write something in English vaguely inspired by your idea of what a ghazal is, fine, but don't call it a ghazal.
« Older Rice, the rocket.... | Iranian Policewomen:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by LeLiLo at 11:16 PM on February 28, 2006