Pizarnik’s Árbol de Diana (cont.)
The Mexican poet, essayist and translator Octavio Paz wrote in Alejandra Pizarnik's introduction to Árbol de Diana, "[the book] does not conatin a single false detail."1 These were, Paz demanded, Pizarnik's finest poems. That might be true.
What I find interesting about Árbol de Diana is that even though the sections are nebulous, fragmentary and perplex they flow in a direction the poet wished to take us. So much of modern flow of consciousness poetics seems to lack that; or to be kinder, many poets seem to forget they have an audience to attend to. Bassnett writes:
Octavio Paz has commented that the role of the writer and that of the translator are fundamentally different: the writer, he claims, fixes the signs of language into a form that is perfect and unchangeable. The task of the translator is then to free those fixed and frozen signs, to liberate them and allow them to reshape themselves in another language" (page 9-10)
I am laboring to follow Pizarnik's original path, her train of original thought, you might say.2 I believe it is that originality that must make or break a poem. I do not agree that every combination of words creates meaning in the same way I do not agree that narration in poetry is a sign of the Bourgeoisie (but there has been much arguing that it has). To that I say: hahaho, little thinkers! Here is a poem that combines both, I believe. Perhaps. We shall see when we are done.
This is sections #19 through # 27. There are 38 sections all told in the poem. Translating is a slow art, even if I do not understand everything I am bringing into English. Still, the ride is interesting.
| Árbol de Diana Alejandra Pizarnik |
The Tree of Diana translated by ZJC |
|---|---|
|
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26 27 |
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. |
- From the 2002 Introduction of: Exchanging lives: poems and translations. Susan Bassnett & Alejandra Pizarnik. Leeds: Peepal Tree, page 6. [back]
- I do not believe every poem, especially work I have seen in the last ten years or so, started out with path, purpose or an original center (or perhaps I am too poor a reader to follow it). If working on Pizarnik's poetry has taught me anything it is that it is impossible to sabotage today's so-called "Plebeian Thinker" by today's so-called "Radical;" since yesterday's Rebel has now become today's Dominant Voice; since the title "Formalist," once an honor, is now used as a curse, as if to say, "You Vulgarian," (almost like L-word, "You Liberal," was a curse in the 1990s) — all of this — simply shows how fast styles and fads climax and then fade away [back]