4/20 Reflections

 I found the abstract imagery in Zuzanna Ginczanka's poetry to be vivid, poignant, and complete, especially in the translation by Joanna Huss. The fact that this quality of imagery is delivered in a distinct and neat rhyming form in Polish makes it a timeless poetry, indeed. I look forward to reading more poems by this author, and in different translations to catch all the reflections of their beauty. 

In the article "In Translation", quite a few parallels and metaphors were drawn. I would like to pose a question: "What would be the most useful and helpful metaphor for translation these days and why?" One of the parallels was drawn between translation, losing, and fleeing in the historical context of persecution. I believe more meaning lies not in this parallel but in the fact that parallels such as this can be made. Everything is interconnected to one degree or the other or, perhaps, to an equal degree altogether. Inventing or discovering such connections does little at this point, in my opinion - to me, a deeper question lies in what the existence of webs of connections mean in the grander scheme of things. It seems like at the moment these webs are used to define translation for themselves. There is always the question: "What is translation?" and there is restlessness in the search for answer. I believe the larger question is: "What makes us need to know what translation is? What makes us uncomfortable with ambiguity?" 

Articles about Zuzanna Ginczanka's poems sometimes mentioned possibility and impossibility to translate something. Possibility/impossibility can be seen as a duality similar to perfection/imperfection. Perfection is something that is accepted and desired. Imperfection is something that is rejected and deemed as undesirable. Possibility is something that is commonly believed to exist. Impossibility is something that is commonly believed to not exist. The reason for creation and maintenance of these artificial distinction is, in my opinion, human discomfort with what is vague. There is a need for labeling, definition through characteristics rather than function, and assortment into categories. An example of the latter would be: "Is this a precise or an imprecise translation?". Such question first and foremost exposes discomfort with not designating something as either precise or not precise. 

Thus, a path to progress for translation may be in becoming comfortable with what is seen as imperfection and imprecision, seeing beyond them and then abandoning such categories altogether. Similarly, when it comes to translation as a practice, going beyond the need to define and characterize it and instead exploring its potential as a tool and broadening the horizons of what this tool can be used for. 

-Ksenia