My translation

Ser and estar

Oh marine
oh boy
one of your problems is that you don't know
how to distinguish ser from estar
for you everything is to be

so let us try to clear things up

for example
a woman es buena
when she sings the psalms out of tune
and gets a new refrigerator every two years
and sends her dog to an analyst every month
and only deals with sex on saturday nights

on the other hand, a woman está buena
when you look at her and your puzzled eyes go blank
and you dream of her dream of her dream of her
and think that a martini will give you the courage
but not even then

for example
a man es listo
when he earns millions over the phone
and evades taxes and his conscience
and buys into a good retirement plan
to cash in when he turns seventy
and it's time to fly to capri and paris
where he manages to rape the gioconda right in the louvre
with his speedy polaroid

on the other hand, a man está listo
when you boys
oh marine
oh boy
appear on the horizon
to inject him with democracy.


There are many options for the title. I like "Ser and estar," but there are other options, such as "To be and to be" or "Ser and estar, or to be and to be." It depends on what you want to emphasize, how close you would like to remain to Benedetti's version, and how much knowledge your intended audience would be expected to have of Spanish. I don't think "Being and Seeming" is an appropriate title for several reasons. First off, the point of the poem is the confusion between the two different forms of "To be," to which the Spanish title gives a clue but which this title does not reference at all. Secondly, 'being' and 'seeming' are not accurate translations of 'ser' and estar,' particularly with how Benedetti uses them in his poem.

For the bulk of the poem, I used Hatfield's translation as a guide, since I do think that he is generally a good translator. I think that for this poem, however, he translated too much of it. Since the issue in question is a (political) language lesson about ser and estar, it makes most sense to me to leave all the uses of these words in. This is especially the case because their replacement with 'being' and 'seeming' is actually inaccurate in some of the examples Benedetti uses. For example, a man does not seem done for when the Marines come in--he is done for. The difference between es listo and está listo is that the former means "he is smart" and the second means "he is done/ready." In this case, Benedetti implies that "he is done" in the sense of "done for" because the Marines have arrived to "inject him with democracy": kill him. It does not matter that the average reader may not actually know the difference between the phrases--the poem does indeed explain. In addition, footnotes are easily and not infrequently added to poems for just such explanations. That was my main issue with the translation, but there were a few other places where I translated more directly than he did.

More on translation--a poem by Mario Benedetti

Here is a poem by Mario Benedetti that demonstrates some of the difficulties with translating. I will give the Spanish version first, followed by the English translation in the book I have, and then the way I would translate and why.

Ser y estar

Oh marine
oh boy
una de tus dificultades consiste en que no sabes
distinguir el ser del estar
para ti todo es to be

así que probemos a aclarar las cosas

por ejemplo
una mujer es buena
cuando entona desafinadamente los salmos
y envía mensualmente su perro al analista
y sólo enfrente el sexo los sábados de noche

en cambio una mujer está buena
cuando la miras y pones los perplejos ojos en blanco
y la imaginas y la imaginas y la imaginas
y hasta crees que tomando un martini te vendría el coraje
pero ni así

por ejemplo
un hombre es listo
cuando obtiene millones por teléfono
y evade la conciencia y los impuestos
y abre una buena póliza de seguros
a cobrar cuando llegue a sus setenta
y sea el momento de viajar en excursióna capri y a parís
y consiga violar a la gioconda en pleno louvre
con la vertiginosa polaroid

en cambio un hombre está listo
cuando ustedes
oh marine
oh boy
aparecen en el horizonte
para inyectarle democracia.


Being and Seeming (trans. by Charles Dean Hatfield)

Oh marine
oh boy
part of your problem is that you don't know
the difference between "being" and "seeming"
to you everything just "is"

now let me explain

for example
a woman "is" good
when she sings the psalms out of tune
and gets a new refrigerator every two years
and sends her dog to an analyst every month
and only deals with sex on saturday nights

on the other hand, a woman "seems" good (at least to me)
when you gaze at her and your puzzled eyes go blank
and you dream of her dream of her dream of her
and think that a martini will give you the courage
when not even that'll do it

for example
a man "is" done
when he earns millions over the phone
and evades taxes and his conscience
and buys into a good retirement plan
to cash in when he turns seventy
and it's time to fly to capri and paris
where he gets to rape the gioconda right in the louvre
with his speedy polaroid.

on the other hand,
a man "seems" done (done-for, that is)
when you boys
oh marine
oh boy
appear on the horizon
to give him a dose of democracy.

---
My translation and rationale follow in the next post.

A note on translation with helpful (?) illustrations

Translation is hard. It is always hard trying to capture precisely what someone is saying without using their exact words, and it is rare that you can translate what they are saying with an exact equivalent. It is always hard, but especially hard in language based art or work--lyrics, fiction, essays, philosophy, poetry. Even when there are two "equivalents" that mean the same thing denotatively/according to the dictionary (e.g., English "red" and Spanish "rojo"), their connotations will always be slightly different because of the different cultural contexts.* When there are not exact equivalents, that makes it much more difficult. Some words are even considered "untranslatable" in that the true sense of a word cannot be adequately translated, certainly not without using multiple words and/or engaging in explanation.

For example, the Finnish word/cultural concept "sisu." Often translated into English as "strength," "courage," or "perseverance," sisu is similar to an amalgam of all of these. However, according to my sister (who studied Finnish and studied abroad in Finland) and some Finnish-American sources, sisu is more than that. Sisu is continuing on in the face of adversity and insurmountable odds when you know that you all hope is lost. It is not an isolated moment or action, but rather continuous action aimed at accomplishing one's goals/what must be done. It is a crucial piece of Finnish culture, and one that I cannot fully explain. More detailed explanations are available at http://poski8.tripod.com/SISU/index.html and Wikipedia, as well as a host of other sources.

Beyond untranslatable words, there are countless idioms and phrases that do not translate cross-culturally or -linguistically. Then there are puns, double entendres/meanings, and (for art at least) rhyme, word/sentence structure, syllables, etc, etc. Translating is hard. I believe it is particularly hard to translate poetry because it is an art form made out of words. And unlike fiction, when sometimes it is less the words and more the plot, characters, or ideas, the specific words used are integral to the meaning, mood, and impact of a poem. Different languages tend to have different norms and conventions regarding poetry. For example, in Spanish poetry in which meter, syllable-count, and all of that jazz are relevant, two vowels next to each other become/are counted as one syllable--even if they form part of three words.

For example, simpática y amable would not be the 8 syllables you might think (sim/pá/ti/ca/ y/ a/ma/ble), but rather 6 (sim/pá/ti/ca y a/ma/ble). "-Ca y a-" becomes one syllable that is blended together as you read. Luckily, this particular type of combination does not happen very often. But it makes translating a poem even more difficult if you want to maintain the rhythm of it.

The next post will be about the translation of a specific poem that is an extended play on language, and which does translate to an extent, but is difficult (I would say impossible) to understand if you were to translate every Spanish word into an English one. I think that, in this case, maintaining some of the original language makes for a better and in some ways clearer translation that many English speakers, even those with no Spanish, would probably understand. I will contrast a professional translation with my own, or at least the changes that I would make. Coincidentally, it is a political poem that I will be discussing! :)





*Hell, "red" in one English-speaking context is different from "red" in another, but that is something else and it usually varies less/people familiar with a less standard or commonly accepted connotation would most likely be familiar with the more standard one.

More on gender dynamics in music

So today I found some more posts about the gender dynamics in music and how many female artists are undervalued. The posts are from the same blog (Tiger Beatdown) as the one that I discussed, but different author (Silvana). In the first one, Silvana discusses what she calls "Dude music": indie/punk/any kind of rock music made by guys and listened to by guys. She talks about how women making the same kind of music are dismissed, how it's ok for men to say that they "just don't like women's voices" or women singers, even though it would be seen as crazy for a woman to say the same thing about men's voices or men singers. Link below.
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/14/ladypalooza-presents-i-went-to-your-concert-and-there-was-nothing-going-on-or-a-meditation-on-dude-music/

The second post, also by Silvana, discusses more generally how privilege functions in rock music in terms of gender, and theorizes on reasons for that. It is also a useful post to check out for an analysis of how privilege can work in other forms of art and other areas of life. In the second post, she links to a bunch of great analyses and expansions by other bloggers of her first post. Not all of which I have read. But check out at least the posts by Amanda and the second post by Spencer, which actually discusses gender privilege, but that's ok.

For a further analysis of gender in music, specifically with regards to the Beatles and Yoko Ono, check out a series of illuminating posts by Cara at The Curvature. Before reading this, I too disliked Ono and thought she was the reason the Beatles broke up and how sad (without really knowing anything about the situation, of course...) The first in the series is http://thecurvature.com/2008/12/15/yoko-ono-a-feminist-analysis-introduction-oh-yoko/

"Political" poetry and other art

Many U.S. critics whose work I've read, professors I've had, and people I've known tend to see much "political" art as less valuable than "non-political" art. The idea is that "political" art places the politics first before the art form, which is *bad.* Because then the art itself isn't as good, goes the idea, and "pure" art is better, and political art, especially poetry and fiction (because they are somehow supposed to be simultaneously intimately personal yet universal, a feat for some reason accomplished primarily by white men) is clumsy, stilted. Poetry in particular is supposed to seek higher truth and ignore such worldly concerns. But thinking back to the feminist movement, isn't the personal political? Why not? Isn't *everything* political? If a political piece of art is "bad," why do many insist on seeing the problem as residing mainly with the fact that it's political and not that it's bad? There is plenty of non-political art that is bad, but we don't fault it for not being political.

Once again, I think it's people's refusal to see that, yes, even the work of dominant classes is political. The topic of a poem is always political, even something as personal as the death of a family member. Yet it is seen as ok and good to write about the death of a family from "natural causes," but political to write about the death of someone from non-natural causes. Just as many female poets and/or poets of color in the U.S. have been given the label of "special interest/(too) personal," or "(too) political," many Latin American poets have been stuck with the "political" label and I have read multiple commentaries about how the problem with Latin American poetry is how political it is. ... Yet when Pablo Picassso paints a scene of Guernica, that is ok. That is "good" art. Dylan Thomas' poem to his dying father ("Do not go gently...") is both personal yet universal, and certainly not political. Nevermind that not all poetic traditions have even focused on aesthetics "above" message.

Anyway, I have read a fair bit of Latin American poetry that was political but also beautiful. With all the colonization, imperialism, and foreign involvement in Latin American affairs, many more things are overtly political. For example, living in Chile during their September 11, when military leader Augusto Pinochet led a U.S.-backed coup against the democratically-elected Salvador Allende, was terribly political. In a country with a population of roughly 10-11 million, several thousand people were directly killed or "disappeared" by Pinochet's government, tens of thousands were tortured or interned in camps, and several hundred thousand fled the country. Even if you consider only these people, that's a lot of affected people. Start considering their friends and family, and that's a significant percentage of the total population. Also consider that *all* Chileans were affected by the change in government, the new policies put in place, and everything else. Yet writing about these changes is purely "political" and not universal or even personal?? I don't think political poetry or other art should have an additional burden to climb in order to be considered "good art."

Rant done. Check out one of my other blogs, which I have been neglecting even more than this one, for a bunch of poetry and quotes that I like from novels. I have a fair bit of poetry in Spanish--with English translations, of course--and I'm about to post some great stuff by Mario Benedetti of Chile! It's a livejournal located at funsizedwit.livejournal.com

Female musicians and artists

It has come to my attention recently that I and many of my friends tend to like more musicians/musical groups dominated by men than women. While this tends to be somewhat true regardless of gender identity, it is more extreme for my male friends. For many of them, liking a female musical group is the exception, and many of the female musicians my female-identified friends and I enjoy are seen as "female" musicians--that is, music by women for women only. This bothers me even though I know that I am guilty of it too, and I have come up with some ideas for why this is. Fortuitously, several weeks after I had been thinking of this, I came across a blog post at Tiger Beatdown discussing this idea.

In this post, K. discusses the exact same issues and makes many good points. Like how when men write about "personal" things like sex, it's seen as "universal" and applies to all MANkind (meaning all humans, of course). When women do the same thing, it's seen as "personal." She discusses this by comparing Liz Phair's work and the critical/popular response to it with Weezer's work (fronted by Rivers Cuomo) and the critical/popular response to it. I must admit I'm not very familiar with Phair's work, but that is going to change as of now. K makes a lot of great points about how Cuomo's lyrics are far more based on intimate, personal experiences of his, yet they are often seen to transcend him, whereas Phair's work is much more varied and even includes songs that are explicitly *not* about her or her experiences, yet her work is typically characterized as being much more intimate and personal.

I think we see this everywhere in music. A lot of people say that they don't like a lot of the female artists out there. Well, many of the female artists who achieve critical and/or commercial success do it by conforming to certain guidelines, which is probably one reason why we have so many female pop artists singing mediocre songs about love and boys, yet so few female artists represented in other genres. Additionally, even when male artists sing songs about love and girls, their work is generally perceived differently (and is frequently seen as better). Many female artists who write songs about other topics are seen sacrificing art for political means. Etc etc.

Moreover, I think this happens in just about every genre. Fiction, short story, poetry, visual art, theater, performance art... Male-centered experiences, perspectives, and stories are seen as universal and apply to all, but female- or trans-centered experiences are seen as "special interest," "personal," and so on. Which is probably why women tend to be more interested in and willing to read stories with male protagonists than men are interested in and willing to read stories with female protagonists--at least in my experience (of course, trans and genderqueer folk don't have much opportunity to read and listen to anything that centers their experiences, and much of the little that has been published has been written by cis-gendered folk). All of this is confirmed by a reading of the classics, most literature classes, thinking about the "great" American rock bands and artists, past and present, etc. This also goes for race, class, and a variety of other categories: the dominant classes' experiences are universalized, and everyone else's are trivialized. I will write more about this in relation to "political" poetry and art in my next post, but there is so much more to say. For now, check out the blog post at Tiger Beatdown below.

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/15/ladypalooza-presents-why-cant-i-be-making-love-cause-im-in-it-or-the-phaircuomo-conundrum/#more-1085

Nuclear energy

Reading Peña's latest post (on Obama's energy policies) has got me thinking about the supposed resurgence in nuclear energy. The Seattle Weekly even ran an article (which I did not think was that great), which you can find at http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-03-17/news/atom-s-eve/. As someone who's family has been heavily involved in nuclear power and weapons, and who completed a 15-20 page research paper in high school on the combined nuclear industries, I think it is a terrible idea.

First of all, much of the argument for returning to nuclear power is that it does not release as much carbon dioxide as coal and other such things. The idea is that it is a "renewable" energy source that will not run out and is somehow better for the environment. In particular, the lack of negative effects from 3-Mile Island's near meltdown has been touted as proof that radiation is not that bad. Never mind that not very much radiation ended up being released, it can difficult to track the effects of radiation (how do you know if it caused a particular cancer case, for example?), and many of the potential effects of the accidence may not have shown up yet or may have manifested themselves in harmless ways. Never mind how close the reactor was to a FULL meltdown, which would have been much much worse (residents of the areas around Chernobyl have certainly seen that).

Another idea being thrown around is that the waste from energy production is really not that bad. It's just the waste from weapons production that is. And while there may be a kernel of truth in this, in that it is much more difficult to deal with waste from weapons production, we still don't really have a good method of dealing with any sort of nuclear waste. At least, not beyond "stick it in that heavy-duty container and hope it doesn't start leaking out any time in the next several million years." How could anyone think that creating more radioactive waste when we don't have enough room to store what we've already got is a good idea? Somehow, politicians are all for it until the wast is going to be stored in their state... Clearly showing how 'safe' they think it is.

The one note of sanity is from a new-ish company called Intellectual Ventures that recognizes that nuclear waste is an issue. It follows that up, of course, by claiming that their new technology would actually use existing radioactive waste to safely produce energy without re-fueling for up to a century. Needless to say, I am extremely skeptical. It would appear from their website that there is not even a functioning prototype reactor using their technology at present, leading me to believe that, like many other new technologies and nuclear power at almost every stage, their claims will not be borne out by reality. One of the Hanford reactors that my grandpa helped design was also new "safe" technology, and even won safety awards for its design. After Chernobyl, they had to shut it down because of design similarities. ...

In fact, the nuclear industries have always been plagued by safety concerns. Despite being a brilliant nuclear engineer abreast of the latest technologies, my grandpa always dismissed nuclear waste as "just trash" up until he died in 1982. When doing research for my paper, I came across a blurb in the New York Times' Science section (back in the 1950's or 1960's) talking about the "revolutionary" new method of nuclear waste disposal scientists at Hanford discovered: dumping the waste straight into sand. ... I think we now know that this is not the best method after all.

Even worse than all of the untintentional dangers of the nuclear industries have been the intentional dangers created by the industry. These dangers have been created primarily a desire to cut corners, increase efficiency, and make more money. They do sometimes have other purposes (as when Hanford scientists intentionally released thousands of curies of radioactive iodine into the air to test Soviet monitoring systems), but they are never good. There is a long history in the nuclear industries of ignoring safety and quality control regulations, to the detriment of workers and the public. Many of the workers who have fought against unsafe conditions have been ostracized and penalized--or worse. For a good film on a former worker in a nuclear plant who was run off the road and killed while working to expose critical safety violations at the plant, watch Silverwood. It could have just been an accident, true, but it is a little weird that the papers she was currently taking to a reporter were never found amongst all her other things in the car...

Even the research on nuclear safety is not very good. Much of the research has major flaws. For example, one study that examined the risk of a certain type of cancer (bone?) due to X-rays back when they were less safe than now found there were no cases in the group they followed. The study was 9 years long, but the cancer had an incubation period of 10 years, so they would have expected to see no cases even if X-rays had a huge effect on cancer rates. Another research study found a smaller difference than expected between cancer rates of people close to the atomic blasts in Japan and those in the suburbs (of those that survived, of course). Yet if an atomic bomb goes off in downtown Seattle, people in Shoreline will still have a pretty high exposure. It would be better to compare to people in another state who received little or no exposure to the radiation.

In sum, nuclear energy is a no go. For more on the history of the nuclear industries in Washington, check out the Washington Nuclear Museum and Educational Center (WANMEC) at this link. http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Welcome;jsessionid=2FD67EB7C4176329E8196A8D0018460B