Prophet Motive: The Kahlil Gibran phenomenon.
January 2, 2008 4:26 AM Subscribe
Prophet Motive. The Kahlil Gibran phenomenon. (From the New Yorker).
Text of "The Prophet" (flash paper)
Kahil Gibran (wikipedia)
Text of "The Prophet" (flash paper)
Kahil Gibran (wikipedia)
Alan Jacobs reviews The Collected Works of Khalil Gibran in Prophet-like prose in First Things:
Expansive and yet vacuous is the prose of Kahlil Gibran,posted by Jahaza at 5:31 AM on January 2, 2008 [6 favorites]
And weary grows the mind doomed to read it.
The hours of my penance lengthen,
The penance established for me by the editor of this magazine,
And those hours may be numbered as the sands of the desert.
...
O Book, O Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran,
Published by Everyman’s Library on a dark day,
I lift you from the Earth to which I recently flung you
When my wrath grew too mighty for me,
I lift you from the Earth,
Noticing once more your annoying heft,
And thanking God—though such thanks are sinful—
That Kahlil Gibran died in New York in 1931
At the age of forty-eight,
So that he could write no more words...
More substantive if no more positive was the New Criterion review (link broken for me) which Google cached here.
posted by Jahaza at 5:38 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by Jahaza at 5:38 AM on January 2, 2008
I'm not a Prophet-thumper, but that New Criterion reviewer seemed almost willfully dense in his interpretations, or had really bizarre expectations in reading it:
"Of evil we get not a word. It is an unpleasant subject, so Gibran doesn’t think, or emote, about it, oleaginously sliding past it. One the day after I read The Prophet for the second time (to make sure I hadn’t missed something), I examined a woman for the courts who was charged with a relatively minor offense, and who described the conduct of her father during her childhood. She would stop her ears at night to prevent the screams of her mother or sisters from reaching them. Her father would demand of her sister that she come home by a certain time at night, and then put the clocks forward to give him a pretext to throw her around the room, hurling her from wall to wall. I do not think my informant had the imagination to make it up; besides, I have heard of such things a thousand, ten thousand, times.
What illumination does Gibran bring to this...?"
I could answer this question really easily for him, but of course, it being a review, it is a rhetorical one. When one's questions about moral or philosophical issues are rhetorical, it's clear that one isn't that interested in learning or hearing anything at all.
posted by hermitosis at 6:41 AM on January 2, 2008
"Of evil we get not a word. It is an unpleasant subject, so Gibran doesn’t think, or emote, about it, oleaginously sliding past it. One the day after I read The Prophet for the second time (to make sure I hadn’t missed something), I examined a woman for the courts who was charged with a relatively minor offense, and who described the conduct of her father during her childhood. She would stop her ears at night to prevent the screams of her mother or sisters from reaching them. Her father would demand of her sister that she come home by a certain time at night, and then put the clocks forward to give him a pretext to throw her around the room, hurling her from wall to wall. I do not think my informant had the imagination to make it up; besides, I have heard of such things a thousand, ten thousand, times.
What illumination does Gibran bring to this...?"
I could answer this question really easily for him, but of course, it being a review, it is a rhetorical one. When one's questions about moral or philosophical issues are rhetorical, it's clear that one isn't that interested in learning or hearing anything at all.
posted by hermitosis at 6:41 AM on January 2, 2008
Almost everything written about Gibran (a more accurate transliteration is Jibran) in English is useless, emphatically including this lazy, snide "review" (really just Acocella rehashing the same tired jokes and sneers that have been aimed at him for most of the last century). Yes, it's easy to mock his work in English; it sounds gassy and pretentious, and only the sheeplike masses with their craving for short, easily assimilated reading matter ("My guess is that plenty of its fans have not read it from cover to cover"—ooh, burn!) pay it any mind. Embarrassing stuff, to be either mocked or ignored.
Well, guess what? He was a poet, he wrote his major work in Arabic, and unless you read Arabic you have no business pronouncing on his value as a poet. Sure, you can point out that he lived a feckless life, dependent on women he didn't respect and drinking too much—but that's true of a whole bunch of poets, artists, and musicians for whom we treat those foibles much more gently because we respect their work. In Gibran's case, we don't know the work, so all we have is the life and the embarrassing fans.
Acocella mocks the comparison to Blake ("Blake?"), but it's a pretty good one. Take away Blake's actual words, the sound and rhythm of his poetry, and what do you have? I opened my Complete Poems at random and here's what I hit on:
They view their former life: they number moments over and over;
Stringing them on their remembrance as on a thread of sorrow.
Thou art my sister and my daughter! thy shame is mine also!
Ask me not of my griefs! thou knowest all my griefs.
How do you suppose that sounds in Swedish or Chinese, or Arabic for that matter? Probably pretty much like Gibran.
Here's what Salma Kadra Jayyusi's comprehensive Modern Arabic Poetry has to say about him:
"If that's the best Arabic poetry can do, it sucks!" [insert Beavis/Butthead laugh]
"What does this Jayyusi woman know? She's probably just another sucker for gassy pretention. I'll ignore the new input and continue with my ignorant contempt."
"While I don't know Arabic and can't judge for myself, I'll take the word of those who do and accord him the same respect I give to other poets famous among people whose language I can't read."
Me, I take the third approach, but YMMV.
posted by languagehat at 6:50 AM on January 2, 2008 [16 favorites]
Well, guess what? He was a poet, he wrote his major work in Arabic, and unless you read Arabic you have no business pronouncing on his value as a poet. Sure, you can point out that he lived a feckless life, dependent on women he didn't respect and drinking too much—but that's true of a whole bunch of poets, artists, and musicians for whom we treat those foibles much more gently because we respect their work. In Gibran's case, we don't know the work, so all we have is the life and the embarrassing fans.
Acocella mocks the comparison to Blake ("Blake?"), but it's a pretty good one. Take away Blake's actual words, the sound and rhythm of his poetry, and what do you have? I opened my Complete Poems at random and here's what I hit on:
They view their former life: they number moments over and over;
Stringing them on their remembrance as on a thread of sorrow.
Thou art my sister and my daughter! thy shame is mine also!
Ask me not of my griefs! thou knowest all my griefs.
How do you suppose that sounds in Swedish or Chinese, or Arabic for that matter? Probably pretty much like Gibran.
Here's what Salma Kadra Jayyusi's comprehensive Modern Arabic Poetry has to say about him:
His work in Arabic is central to the development of modern Arabic literature. Although his best works were written in poetic prose and sometimes in prose poetry, he was able, singlehandedly, to revolutionize the language of poetry in the twenties and thirties with his famous "Gibranian style" and a new set of attitudes and concepts. Without his contribution the story of modern Arabic poetry would have been a very different one.So you have your choice of responses:
"If that's the best Arabic poetry can do, it sucks!" [insert Beavis/Butthead laugh]
"What does this Jayyusi woman know? She's probably just another sucker for gassy pretention. I'll ignore the new input and continue with my ignorant contempt."
"While I don't know Arabic and can't judge for myself, I'll take the word of those who do and accord him the same respect I give to other poets famous among people whose language I can't read."
Me, I take the third approach, but YMMV.
posted by languagehat at 6:50 AM on January 2, 2008 [16 favorites]
Don't forget Kehlog Albran's The Profit.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:05 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:05 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, guess what? He was a poet, he wrote his major work in Arabic, and unless you read Arabic you have no business pronouncing on his value as a poet.
Only Xs can criticise other Xs.
posted by three blind mice at 7:52 AM on January 2, 2008
Only Xs can criticise other Xs.
posted by three blind mice at 7:52 AM on January 2, 2008
I don't think his place in the great poets should be based on the word of others. English speaking people should list English speaking poets as the greats because they can understand him. Arabic-speaking people should list Arabic poets as the greats for the same reason.
Well, yeah, sure, but if one tries to have a mental map of cultural/artistic worlds other than one's own (which of course there's no need to do), it's nice to have an idea of who's considered among the greats. If nothing else, it can be an ice-breaker if you meet someone from that culture. In this particular case, I can imagine an Arabic-speaker lighting up if you mentioned Gibran with respect: "Ah, I am glad to hear you say that! I never mention the great Gibran because Americans laugh as soon as I say his name."
Only Xs can criticise other Xs.
Assuming you were trying to make an actual point rather than a failed joke, no, this is not some vague generalization about how you have to walk in aman's person's shoes, it's a very specific and irrefutable point. Poetry is what gets lost in translation (to quote Frost); if all you have to go on is an approximation of the "content" of the poetry (it's about trees in winter, or love for a beautiful woman) you have nothing to go on. You cannot say anything meaningful about poetry in Arabic unless you know Arabic. I'm sorry if that offends you.
posted by languagehat at 8:03 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah, sure, but if one tries to have a mental map of cultural/artistic worlds other than one's own (which of course there's no need to do), it's nice to have an idea of who's considered among the greats. If nothing else, it can be an ice-breaker if you meet someone from that culture. In this particular case, I can imagine an Arabic-speaker lighting up if you mentioned Gibran with respect: "Ah, I am glad to hear you say that! I never mention the great Gibran because Americans laugh as soon as I say his name."
Only Xs can criticise other Xs.
Assuming you were trying to make an actual point rather than a failed joke, no, this is not some vague generalization about how you have to walk in a
posted by languagehat at 8:03 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm going to avoid discussing the merits of his works but would just like to point how much he resembles Borat.
posted by TedW at 8:09 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by TedW at 8:09 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
A lot of people do. That's what makes Borat so successful as a broad cultural sterotype.
posted by hermitosis at 8:22 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by hermitosis at 8:22 AM on January 2, 2008
Langaugehat, surely there something to the ideas of poetry just as there's more than style to the substance of prose, if not to the same degree. Poetry isn't just a matter of technical proficiency is it?
And, I think it's a legitmate critical position to say that the ideas of a poet are deficient and therefore the work is.
posted by Jahaza at 8:23 AM on January 2, 2008
And, I think it's a legitmate critical position to say that the ideas of a poet are deficient and therefore the work is.
posted by Jahaza at 8:23 AM on January 2, 2008
Langaugehat, surely there something to the ideas of poetry just as there's more than style to the substance of prose, if not to the same degree. Poetry isn't just a matter of technical proficiency is it?
No, of course not, but it's the use of the resources of a given language that makes poetry poetry. Compare music: there are plenty of musical works that imitate birds or storms or whatever, and that's fun and legitimate, but it's extraneous to the proper business of music (so to speak)—if all a piece of music has going for it is that it does a good job of imitating a train, it may be a good imitation but it's not a good piece of music. I could probably make that clearer, but it's the best I can do right now.
And, I think it's a legitmate critical position to say that the ideas of a poet are deficient and therefore the work is.
I disagree. Poetry is not about "ideas," and in fact poets—and writers in general—often have primitive or silly ideas (which is why it always amuses me that people take seriously what novelists have to say about politics). Some of the greatest poets of the twentieth century have had ludicrous (Yeats), boring (Eliot), or vile (Pound) ideas. Their ideas have nothing to do with what makes them great poets.
Consider "Jabberwocky," pretty much universally considered one of the best poems produced by Victorian England. It has no "ideas," being just a pastiche of adventure poems using invented (and thus meaningless) words, but it's delightful and unforgettable. And consider "This Be the Verse," one of the few unquestionably great poems Larkin wrote (in my view); its "idea" (that life sucks and you should die as early as you can and not have kids) is banal and repellent, but so what? That's not what poetry is about. If you have a message (to quote another cultural genius), use Western Union.
posted by languagehat at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
No, of course not, but it's the use of the resources of a given language that makes poetry poetry. Compare music: there are plenty of musical works that imitate birds or storms or whatever, and that's fun and legitimate, but it's extraneous to the proper business of music (so to speak)—if all a piece of music has going for it is that it does a good job of imitating a train, it may be a good imitation but it's not a good piece of music. I could probably make that clearer, but it's the best I can do right now.
And, I think it's a legitmate critical position to say that the ideas of a poet are deficient and therefore the work is.
I disagree. Poetry is not about "ideas," and in fact poets—and writers in general—often have primitive or silly ideas (which is why it always amuses me that people take seriously what novelists have to say about politics). Some of the greatest poets of the twentieth century have had ludicrous (Yeats), boring (Eliot), or vile (Pound) ideas. Their ideas have nothing to do with what makes them great poets.
Consider "Jabberwocky," pretty much universally considered one of the best poems produced by Victorian England. It has no "ideas," being just a pastiche of adventure poems using invented (and thus meaningless) words, but it's delightful and unforgettable. And consider "This Be the Verse," one of the few unquestionably great poems Larkin wrote (in my view); its "idea" (that life sucks and you should die as early as you can and not have kids) is banal and repellent, but so what? That's not what poetry is about. If you have a message (to quote another cultural genius), use Western Union.
posted by languagehat at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
I loved him on Welcome Back Kotter.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:39 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:39 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Your prophet is not your prophet
He is the son and the daughter of poetry's
longing to engage in extended philosophical discources
He publishes in English
But he is not an English poet
And though he writes for you
Criticism of his poetry is not for you
You can give him your money but not your thoughts
He has his own thoughts
For his soul dwells in a place of Arabic poetry
Which you can not visit
Not even in your dreams.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:18 AM on January 2, 2008
He is the son and the daughter of poetry's
longing to engage in extended philosophical discources
He publishes in English
But he is not an English poet
And though he writes for you
Criticism of his poetry is not for you
You can give him your money but not your thoughts
He has his own thoughts
For his soul dwells in a place of Arabic poetry
Which you can not visit
Not even in your dreams.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:18 AM on January 2, 2008
I Am a Poet, But I Am Not Your Poet.
posted by languagehat at 9:20 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by languagehat at 9:20 AM on January 2, 2008
Languagehat, I totally agree with everything you've said here.
I think the sheer ubiquity and popularity of "The Prophet" makes it an broad target for especially arch criticism.
posted by hermitosis at 9:21 AM on January 2, 2008
I think the sheer ubiquity and popularity of "The Prophet" makes it an broad target for especially arch criticism.
posted by hermitosis at 9:21 AM on January 2, 2008
Jahaza: no, it's not just a matter of technical proficiency, but the problem with poetry (a problem only in the sense that it makes translation of the poet's exact meaning nearly impossible) is that the density of meaning in its words make the technique inseparable from the content.
When the resolution of the meanings and experiences that you are trying to convey is so high, it's impossible for a translation to not alter those meanings in some way. There is no abstraction or summary possible in poetry by definition. Its content is already as concentrated as possible.
Ach, on preview, I'm with languagehat.
posted by invitapriore at 9:41 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
When the resolution of the meanings and experiences that you are trying to convey is so high, it's impossible for a translation to not alter those meanings in some way. There is no abstraction or summary possible in poetry by definition. Its content is already as concentrated as possible.
Ach, on preview, I'm with languagehat.
posted by invitapriore at 9:41 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I see and agree with languagehat's points about poetry written in other languages and poetry translated from language to another. However, the problem remains: The Prophet was written in English for an English-speaking audience, and as such, is not very good poetry.
Growing up, it seemed everyone had this book stashed somewhere. People quoted it to me on all sorts of occasions. But when I sat to read the thing it seemed pretty maudlin and pretentious. Granted, this could be because the work is dated, but still, older poems survive the test of time.
Oh, and I have to express my annoyance at the reviewer for using the word "Osterizes." Often I see obscure words and look them up, trying to shore up the ol' vocabulary. What I discovered today is an "Oster" is some kind of blender. Bit of a letdown, really.
posted by elwoodwiles at 10:28 AM on January 2, 2008
Growing up, it seemed everyone had this book stashed somewhere. People quoted it to me on all sorts of occasions. But when I sat to read the thing it seemed pretty maudlin and pretentious. Granted, this could be because the work is dated, but still, older poems survive the test of time.
Oh, and I have to express my annoyance at the reviewer for using the word "Osterizes." Often I see obscure words and look them up, trying to shore up the ol' vocabulary. What I discovered today is an "Oster" is some kind of blender. Bit of a letdown, really.
posted by elwoodwiles at 10:28 AM on January 2, 2008
An LRB piece reviewing two earlier books on Gibran.
posted by shothotbot at 10:33 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by shothotbot at 10:33 AM on January 2, 2008
The Prophet was written in English for an English-speaking audience, and as such, is not very good poetry.
Yes, a good and important point and one that I neglected to make as I rushed to his defense, so thanks. I add, however, that while there are well-known cases of people who have written excellent prose in a second language, I can't offhand think of such cases for poetry (though there must be some). I'm fine with making fun of The Prophet, but not of Gibran as a poet in general.
posted by languagehat at 10:40 AM on January 2, 2008
Yes, a good and important point and one that I neglected to make as I rushed to his defense, so thanks. I add, however, that while there are well-known cases of people who have written excellent prose in a second language, I can't offhand think of such cases for poetry (though there must be some). I'm fine with making fun of The Prophet, but not of Gibran as a poet in general.
posted by languagehat at 10:40 AM on January 2, 2008
Poetry is not about "ideas,"
Are you seriously suggesting that my proper attitude upon levering open the weighty tome of the Prophet, English version authorised for sale by one K Gilbran, should not be "what utter fucking tosh this guy is peddling," but rather, "well, I hear sounds nice in Arabic, therefore the man must be a great poet"?
If I think his opinions are bullshit (and opinions may vary) I fail to see why his original timbre and cadence and iambs cannot be directed to politely go fuck themselves. He is the one voicing pronouncements, and his the rich reward of people telling him what they think of them. That is his golden preogative as a poet, that people such as I may in fact not stop to marvel at his sullen craft and art, or may not dwell upon the hidden wonders of the divine language of Allah, but simply scratch their heads as to what he is actually saying.
That is no disrepect to his skill in Arabic - which obviously I am unable to comprehend. But he has caused the translation of the work into my language, thus my hounds are entitled to lap at his meats.
As for your manifesto on "what poetry is about," I cock my snook at anyone telling me what the infinite resource of poetry is "all about" in a fragile strut of two or three sentences. Pretty thin manifesto that!
Furthermore, the other side of "poetry is what gets lost in translation" is that one could never have an opinion of a poet (say, Borges - ?) who one doesn't read in his original language of composition. But that is, frankly, a nonsensical position: I love Borges. If I had Spanish, I'd no doubt love him more, but I find wonderous strange the opinion that my love for him is somehow wholly irrational and utterly undeserved.
I say this with the great respect and love that I (hope you feel I) have for you, and from the ignorant position that is the sine qua non of the student. NOW WE FIGHT.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:41 AM on January 2, 2008 [4 favorites]
Are you seriously suggesting that my proper attitude upon levering open the weighty tome of the Prophet, English version authorised for sale by one K Gilbran, should not be "what utter fucking tosh this guy is peddling," but rather, "well, I hear sounds nice in Arabic, therefore the man must be a great poet"?
If I think his opinions are bullshit (and opinions may vary) I fail to see why his original timbre and cadence and iambs cannot be directed to politely go fuck themselves. He is the one voicing pronouncements, and his the rich reward of people telling him what they think of them. That is his golden preogative as a poet, that people such as I may in fact not stop to marvel at his sullen craft and art, or may not dwell upon the hidden wonders of the divine language of Allah, but simply scratch their heads as to what he is actually saying.
That is no disrepect to his skill in Arabic - which obviously I am unable to comprehend. But he has caused the translation of the work into my language, thus my hounds are entitled to lap at his meats.
As for your manifesto on "what poetry is about," I cock my snook at anyone telling me what the infinite resource of poetry is "all about" in a fragile strut of two or three sentences. Pretty thin manifesto that!
Furthermore, the other side of "poetry is what gets lost in translation" is that one could never have an opinion of a poet (say, Borges - ?) who one doesn't read in his original language of composition. But that is, frankly, a nonsensical position: I love Borges. If I had Spanish, I'd no doubt love him more, but I find wonderous strange the opinion that my love for him is somehow wholly irrational and utterly undeserved.
I say this with the great respect and love that I (hope you feel I) have for you, and from the ignorant position that is the sine qua non of the student. NOW WE FIGHT.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:41 AM on January 2, 2008 [4 favorites]
Oops, post posting, it appears the fight is over and lost by me :(
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:42 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:42 AM on January 2, 2008
While I understand the criticisms of Gibran's style, and the base simplicity and easily digestible nature of many of the ideas in The Prophet, I have trouble saying the book contains nothing of value. I have long countered certain acquaintances' desire to "always be happy" in life with Gibran's restatement of the ancient idea that joy and sorrow are necessary and inevitable counterparts. Of course, self-analysis might reveal a shallow need to justify my own suffering, but, unlike those acquaintances, I have found myself less quick to avoid or ignore melancholy, and often to enjoy it.
Regarding the attempt at a content/style dichotomy, I'd point out that the works of two of the world's greatest mystics, Lao Tzu and Rumi, require translations that dare to stray from the literal in order to get at the message of the poet. I'm thinking of Stephen Mitchell and Coleman Barks' translations in particular. Perhaps part of Gibran's problem was that he did write in English, and, per the article, allow a second party to alter his work substantially. Writing The Prophet in arabic would have allowed a more skilled translator to access his ideas in a more pleasing way, though I doubt it would have sold more copies.
posted by whahappen?! at 10:48 AM on January 2, 2008
Regarding the attempt at a content/style dichotomy, I'd point out that the works of two of the world's greatest mystics, Lao Tzu and Rumi, require translations that dare to stray from the literal in order to get at the message of the poet. I'm thinking of Stephen Mitchell and Coleman Barks' translations in particular. Perhaps part of Gibran's problem was that he did write in English, and, per the article, allow a second party to alter his work substantially. Writing The Prophet in arabic would have allowed a more skilled translator to access his ideas in a more pleasing way, though I doubt it would have sold more copies.
posted by whahappen?! at 10:48 AM on January 2, 2008
At the end of the Robert Irwin article, which is sort or snarky, he does make a more substantive point:
Gibran’s impact on the subsequent development of Western literature and art has been negligible. However, it has to be conceded that his influence on the development of modern Arabic poetry was considerable. Gibran, and other Arab poets living in exile in America (the Mahjar movement), but mostly Gibran, were largely responsible for the introduction of romantic themes into Arabic poetry and for the breakdown of the constraints recognised by poets of the neoclassical school. Everybody I have read on Gibran the writer in Arabic takes it for granted that these developments were good things, but I am not so sure. Gibran, Naimy and Amin al-Rihani imported European themes and they did so at the expense of indigenous traditions. The mostly pre-Islamic poets of the Arabian Peninsula, whom the neoclassical poets of the 19th and early 20th centuries chose to imitate and, inimitating, surpass, have more of value to teach Arab writers than the alien corn so eagerly devoured by Gibran’s generation of intellectuals. I would rather read Shanfara or Imru’l-Qays any day.
posted by shothotbot at 10:49 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Gibran’s impact on the subsequent development of Western literature and art has been negligible. However, it has to be conceded that his influence on the development of modern Arabic poetry was considerable. Gibran, and other Arab poets living in exile in America (the Mahjar movement), but mostly Gibran, were largely responsible for the introduction of romantic themes into Arabic poetry and for the breakdown of the constraints recognised by poets of the neoclassical school. Everybody I have read on Gibran the writer in Arabic takes it for granted that these developments were good things, but I am not so sure. Gibran, Naimy and Amin al-Rihani imported European themes and they did so at the expense of indigenous traditions. The mostly pre-Islamic poets of the Arabian Peninsula, whom the neoclassical poets of the 19th and early 20th centuries chose to imitate and, inimitating, surpass, have more of value to teach Arab writers than the alien corn so eagerly devoured by Gibran’s generation of intellectuals. I would rather read Shanfara or Imru’l-Qays any day.
posted by shothotbot at 10:49 AM on January 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Poetry is not about "ideas"
Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die.
posted by gimonca at 10:50 AM on January 2, 2008
Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die.
posted by gimonca at 10:50 AM on January 2, 2008
The other reason The Prophet is a popular target for criticism, I think, is that it is a poetry book that's popular among people who don't read a lot of poetry, or at any rate don't know a lot about it. And the hipsters and undergrads and self-proclaimed experts hate that kind of thing. For most any kind of art, there are artists who occupy this same kind of area: painters (O'Keeffe and Picasso both come to mind), novelists (e.g., J.K. Rowling), etc.
posted by box at 10:56 AM on January 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 10:56 AM on January 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
And let's not forget Brodsky's counterpoint to Frost, "poetry is what is gained in translation". Translations can show as great a skill with language as the original poems. You may never have the exactly same poem and you risk having it ruined by a not-up-to-the-task translator but the payoff, a new piece of art, is worth it.
posted by ersatz at 11:22 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by ersatz at 11:22 AM on January 2, 2008
Oops, post posting, it appears the fight is over and lost by me :(
I DEFEAT YOU BEFORE EVEN ENCOUNTERING YOU! FEAR ME!
And let's not forget Brodsky's counterpoint to Frost, "poetry is what is gained in translation". Translations can show as great a skill with language as the original poems. You may never have the exactly same poem and you risk having it ruined by a not-up-to-the-task translator but the payoff, a new piece of art, is worth it.
I love Brodsky (and treasure a copy of A Part of Speech he signed for me in Russian), but I hate that quote: it's not only "reverse the rhetoric" cutesiness, it's self-serving. Brodsky depended for his reputation (and his eventual Nobel) on translations, so of course he was going to promote them. Furthermore, and worse, he not only did a lot of self-translations (which are, not to put to fine a point on it, awful), he rode herd on other translators, frequently changing their words to fit his own ideas (read Daniel Weissbort's From Russian with love: Joseph Brodsky in English for examples). I always admired Brodsky for his courage and independence and took Russians' word for it that he was a great poet, but I never really liked his poetry that much until I could read it in Russian for myself. Then I knew that he was a great poet.
If you can't read a poet in his or her own language, you're in the position of a blind man hearing a painting described to you.
posted by languagehat at 11:52 AM on January 2, 2008
I DEFEAT YOU BEFORE EVEN ENCOUNTERING YOU! FEAR ME!
And let's not forget Brodsky's counterpoint to Frost, "poetry is what is gained in translation". Translations can show as great a skill with language as the original poems. You may never have the exactly same poem and you risk having it ruined by a not-up-to-the-task translator but the payoff, a new piece of art, is worth it.
I love Brodsky (and treasure a copy of A Part of Speech he signed for me in Russian), but I hate that quote: it's not only "reverse the rhetoric" cutesiness, it's self-serving. Brodsky depended for his reputation (and his eventual Nobel) on translations, so of course he was going to promote them. Furthermore, and worse, he not only did a lot of self-translations (which are, not to put to fine a point on it, awful), he rode herd on other translators, frequently changing their words to fit his own ideas (read Daniel Weissbort's From Russian with love: Joseph Brodsky in English for examples). I always admired Brodsky for his courage and independence and took Russians' word for it that he was a great poet, but I never really liked his poetry that much until I could read it in Russian for myself. Then I knew that he was a great poet.
If you can't read a poet in his or her own language, you're in the position of a blind man hearing a painting described to you.
posted by languagehat at 11:52 AM on January 2, 2008
Too fine a point, dammit.
posted by languagehat at 11:54 AM on January 2, 2008
posted by languagehat at 11:54 AM on January 2, 2008
I'd like to stick my neck out and say that I like the Prophet. I never considered it to be poetry, and neither did the bookstore I worked at, which kept it shelved in the fiction section. I think it is a wonderfully useful and insightful work of fiction, and in America it is many people's introduction to a world of wisdom beyond Christianity.
I haven't read it since I was 19, but I was moved by it at the time and gave my mother a copy; she'd never read it before, and it was a great comfort to her during the time of her divorce. I know plenty of other people who have found it helpful.
When it comes to works of inspiration, what some people regard as "treacly" or "maudlin" is just the author's attempt to meet the reader halfway emotionally. It's certainly not always employed effectively or enjoyable for everyone, and certainly it depends on what is going on in your life as you read it. But to argue against the overall quality of something because of this is rather unjust, I think. The Prophet has served a purpose for a great many people for many decades, and should be appreciated for what it is, not judged by standards it was never intended to live up to.
Again, I'm not a big fan or anything. I just think I can sense people recoiling away from coming out in defense of it because of the tone set early in the thread, and that's unfortunate.
posted by hermitosis at 11:57 AM on January 2, 2008
I haven't read it since I was 19, but I was moved by it at the time and gave my mother a copy; she'd never read it before, and it was a great comfort to her during the time of her divorce. I know plenty of other people who have found it helpful.
When it comes to works of inspiration, what some people regard as "treacly" or "maudlin" is just the author's attempt to meet the reader halfway emotionally. It's certainly not always employed effectively or enjoyable for everyone, and certainly it depends on what is going on in your life as you read it. But to argue against the overall quality of something because of this is rather unjust, I think. The Prophet has served a purpose for a great many people for many decades, and should be appreciated for what it is, not judged by standards it was never intended to live up to.
Again, I'm not a big fan or anything. I just think I can sense people recoiling away from coming out in defense of it because of the tone set early in the thread, and that's unfortunate.
posted by hermitosis at 11:57 AM on January 2, 2008
If you can't read a poet in his or her own language, you're in the position of a blind man hearing a painting described to you.
Will no-one umbrella us from this deluge of piffle? What about "mna mna - do doo be doo doo?" - possible the finest poem that Sesame Street ever wrote, and comprehensible to any ear-hole whatsoever its provenence. "Ooooh, it's better in French, waah waah waah" - WHATEVER.
Merely because "l'anguish-hate" strides around in a golden waistcoat and speaks 10,000 languages, he thinks he alone is fit to rule this kingdom of the blind. But let me just point out a recondite comparison, here: golden waistcoat? Speaks many tongues of man and machine? Hello! We're getting a lesson in poetry from C-3PO! So stick THAT up your "death star".
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:39 PM on January 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Will no-one umbrella us from this deluge of piffle? What about "mna mna - do doo be doo doo?" - possible the finest poem that Sesame Street ever wrote, and comprehensible to any ear-hole whatsoever its provenence. "Ooooh, it's better in French, waah waah waah" - WHATEVER.
Merely because "l'anguish-hate" strides around in a golden waistcoat and speaks 10,000 languages, he thinks he alone is fit to rule this kingdom of the blind. But let me just point out a recondite comparison, here: golden waistcoat? Speaks many tongues of man and machine? Hello! We're getting a lesson in poetry from C-3PO! So stick THAT up your "death star".
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:39 PM on January 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
I CAST THEE OUT! BEGONE SPAWN OF SATAN! THE DEATH STAR COMMANDS THEE!
posted by languagehat at 12:46 PM on January 2, 2008
posted by languagehat at 12:46 PM on January 2, 2008
Oh sure, blame it all on my dad. Sometimes I wish I'd never been spawned.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:58 PM on January 2, 2008
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:58 PM on January 2, 2008
anyone bilingual knows how difficult it is preserving nuance in translations of non-technical writing, and nuance is what separates a good poem from a bad poem.
This isn't a global rule, but it is certainly something to keep in mind.
When another person dies, I am make the lesser, since I am part of humanity.
So when the church bell tolls at a funeral, don't send someone to inquire as to who died,
since the bell is ringing for you, too, dumbass.
posted by panamax at 1:31 PM on January 2, 2008
This isn't a global rule, but it is certainly something to keep in mind.
When another person dies, I am make the lesser, since I am part of humanity.
So when the church bell tolls at a funeral, don't send someone to inquire as to who died,
since the bell is ringing for you, too, dumbass.
posted by panamax at 1:31 PM on January 2, 2008
hermitosis: I could answer this question really easily for him...
I would love to hear that answer, seriously.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:40 PM on January 2, 2008
I would love to hear that answer, seriously.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:40 PM on January 2, 2008
the quidnunc kid writes "Will no-one umbrella us from this deluge of piffle? What about 'mna mna - do doo be doo doo?'"
AFAIK, on the Muppet Show album it's listed as "Manamana". And, yes, it's a great poem.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:20 PM on January 2, 2008
AFAIK, on the Muppet Show album it's listed as "Manamana". And, yes, it's a great poem.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:20 PM on January 2, 2008
I love Brodsky (and treasure a copy of A Part of Speech he signed for me in Russian), but I hate that quote: it's not only "reverse the rhetoric" cutesiness, it's self-serving.
Heh, my reaction the first few times I read it was along the same lines. "NICE RIPPING OFF, BUDDY!". I now consider it the same point Frost made, from the opposite direction.
posted by ersatz at 5:22 PM on January 2, 2008
Heh, my reaction the first few times I read it was along the same lines. "NICE RIPPING OFF, BUDDY!". I now consider it the same point Frost made, from the opposite direction.
posted by ersatz at 5:22 PM on January 2, 2008
Pretentious people hate those outside their clique who succeed more than they.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 2:21 AM on January 3, 2008
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 2:21 AM on January 3, 2008
« Older 2 Free Indie Platformers that might have been... | International payphone pictures and phone numbers. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:50 AM on January 2, 2008