Myth of Arrival

“Caution: Amateur at Work!!”

I am a student here. I do not claim to have a mastery over any language and any poems I attempt to translate from their native language into English (or from English into another language, for that matter) are rough drafts at best, erroneous at worse and probably lie somewhere in between the two poles.

If any philosophy is driving these translations it is that we need to expose more poets of various cultures and languages to the world, not less. I agree with Marilyn Hacker who said: "a bad translation might prompt someone with a better command of the language to make a better translation." I agree with Philip Levine who said: “Go ahead, write bad poetry for chrissake, it’s not like your hurting anyone.” And I agree with my own statement I wrote in response to how I see my work:

I fall into the “Coleman Barks School of Translating.” When I read his versions of Rumi’s poetry I am there with that Sufi mystic. They speak to me in a way that other Rumi translations do not. I, too, want to burn with fervor, call on my Beloved, set off looking for my Shams. And not just me, but loads of people seem moved by Barks’ translation, full of sensuality, passion, duende. It could be argued that Barks is not being literal to the originals. But for whatever reasons, the translations of Rumi’s work by other (yes, surely more faithful, literal, traditional) leave me cold. Why is that? Should I turn my back on Barks’ work because they are not as literal?

Be warned, my friends, I am a poet first and I take language very seriously but that doesn't mean I am always successful. It will probably happen you will disagree with how I rendered someone's verse. This is not a crime, per se, but hopefully a chance for us to open a dialog together. Please write to me with your concerns. I will try to respond to everything.

Thank you.