Poetry?

Confession time: I’ve been writing poetry all year. 

It wasn’t a deliberate pandemic project. In fact, poetry is pretty much the one type of writing that I was sure I’d never try because I’m definitely not a poet. But here I am all the same.

It came about entirely by accident. I was supposed to write an essay for a public-facing volume of heretical Jewish responses to the pandemic and the general state of the world. My plan was to write something on the impact of majority languages on the liturgy of minority religions or, more specifically, how King James’ language about God creeps into Jewish liturgy simply because that’s the language we have, and how that impacts how we think theologically. I couldn’t pull my thoughts together, though, and just started playing around with some texts. What would it look like, I asked myself, if the medieval Hebrew poets of al-Andalus, my guys, who quote constantly from the text of the Bible, had to be translated with that kind of English? What started as an experimental retranslation turned into a mistranslation, which turned into some original composition. I sent four texts off to the editor with a note assuring her that there would be no hard feelings if she didn’t want them because it was a first attempt at a new form, because I’m not a poet, and, let’s be honest, because they’re weird. She did want them, in the end, and the book is slated to come out next week

I’ve barely wanted to *translate* poetry in the past when I’ve had to for academic publications because you have to be a poet to translate poetry and I’m not a poet. But, as I said, here I am all the same.

I’ve continued playing in verse with overlapping questions of poetry and biblical language and day-to-day usage, with an eye toward what I hope will become a full length manuscript of texts I’m calling mistranslations, that hew more and less closely to the book of psalms and its commentaries through the ages. It has been a pleasure to play with language in new-for-me ways and to be able to express ideas and make arguments in shorter but no lesser forms. I’ve especially been enjoying the possibilities for expressing the surreal and the non sequitur that are a part of my experience of the world but that I’m never quite sure how to explain or what to do with.

There’s lots of new technical learning to be done, and also how to navigate a completely different world of publishing. I’ve got lots of submissions in process (which means I’m constantly refreshing my Submittable), some rejections, some successes .  I’m also in the process of shopping around a short chapbook manuscript based on what I’ve written this year, but I think I jumped the gun a bit, that there’s more for me to learn about expectations and submissions and the non-writing side of writing poetry. I’m revising and writing more for a stronger chapbook manuscript, and continuing to work on the longer-term project that kicked this all off in my head.

And I’m continuing to take classes and workshops here and there for practice, and exposure to new (which for me means non-medieval) forms, critique, and community. I’d been toying for a while with the idea of pursuing an MFA, which I always thought would be in creative non-fiction, but I feel like I’ve thrown into question my own writerly identity and, more importantly, the kind of work I want to do. 

I’m lucky that my academic life happens in a department that has a really strong creative bent and that I don’t have to work to hide this from my immediate colleagues. But most of the academy isn’t like that, and so it’s something I’ve wanted to play pretty close to the vest until I could at least show some results of the type that are recognizable in that world (publications, a short list for a prize, etc.). 

And the fact of the matter is that I’m as surprised as anyone. I’m not a poet. I’ve just been writing some poetry, and as much as when I say that sentence in my head it always ends with an audible question mark, I think I’ll keep at it for a while. 

My Eyebrows Attend a Book Club

One of the ways that organizations have tried to maintain some kind of social connection during the shelter-in-place order is by creating Zoom book clubs. This is it!, I thought to myself. I can finally socialize in a way that is based around something I’m comfortable doing — reading! 

But going to a book club as an academic is hard. I analyze text for a living. I read for a living. I ask questions about what I’m reading and explain it to people for a living. And all of those facts of my life mean that it would be very easy for me to dominate a conversation about books and talk over people’s heads. It’s not that I’m necessarily smarter, just that I have the tools to do this kind of thing a little bit more refined and in a little bit more regular use than most people. I make it a goal to blend in, but it doesn’t usually work. Even before the shelter-in-place order, I attended a book club meeting in person at a local bookstore. I shared at thought about the structure of that month’s novel, a thought I considered to be totally innocuous. I guess it wasn’t. Everyone was blown away by my insight (imagine me rolling my eyes here as I retell the story), and I had blown my cover. 

The offending brow.

This week I tried a Jewish book club for people in their 20s and 30s, run by the synagogue I’m thinking about joining. Even though I found the book to be hopelessly superficial, I was resolved to behave myself like a civilian and try blend in. But my eyebrows betrayed me when one of the women in the group, during a conversation about lashon hara as discussed in the group’s book, said that she knew it was a solidly Jewish value because she hadn’t met any Jewish religious leaders who would ever engage in the practice. When the rabbi insisted that I verbalize what my eyebrows were already evidently saying by jumping about six inches above the top of my head (they do that of their own accord — traitors!), I said, “Well, it’s just that I was thinking about Ovadiah Yosef…” The woman looked kind of embarrassed. I felt terrible. I don’t think my eyebrows cared.

The offending book.

This exchange happened after a first one: The rabbi leading the group talked about imitatio dei being a Jewish value and I cringed. Apparently enough for it to be visible on Zoom. My overactive eyebrows are fairly substantial and therefore hard to miss when they jump up my face, even on a tiny screen and across a bad internet connection. The rabbi asked why I reacted so strongly to that, and I said that it just seemed like a very Christian way of formulating things. He insisted that it isn’t, that a phrase at the beginning of this week’s parshaקְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ — is proof that imitatio dei is also a Jewish concept. We ultimately left it alone.

But I didn’t like it. The phrase, to me, evoked the idea of behaving in a god-like way within a salvific framework that is not operative in Judaism. So I did what any academic who has just been a total pain in the arse in a book club would do: I found a couple of articles and read them. Both are Jewish Studies-related and both use the phrase imitatio dei without comment. The second one I’ve linked to here, the one by Harvey, a noted historian of Judeo-Islamic philosophy, is published in an academic/Orthodox Jewish context, namely in the journal of the Rabbinical Council of America.

I realized that it was the very Latin-ness itself of the phrase that was what was bothering me, which is strange. Rationally and in every instant of my professional life I know very well that languages aren’t inherently confessional: Jews in the MENA speak Arabic, Arabic-speaking Christians use the word Allah to mean God when they pray, a large swath of the population in medieval Spain were native speakers of a Romance language, regardless of their faith tradition, etc. I’m often aware of the King Jamesiness of contemporary Jewish liturgies in English and it catches my attention, but ultimately I see it as an example of Anglophone Jews using the language that has evolved for us to talk to and about God.*

So what to make of this reflexive jolt of Latin = Christianity? It was valuable for me to read and react to things that I think about a lot professionally, but as a completely non-academic reader who wasn’t expecting much out of the book or the discussion. My low expectations let me just react without thinking about it, because I wasn’t expecting to be thinking about anything. I don’t know that we can ever deliberate sit down and try to read like a civilian, but there is something to be said for being surprised into it or by it. Reading reflexively is reminder of something that sometimes gets lost in textual criticism: that pure reaction is a part of reading that provides another path by which to seek meaning in a text.   

All the same, I’d like the lockdown to be over soon. I think I prefer my old, familiar ways of being terrible at socializing. And honestly, a social life conducted entirely the internet has been pretty rough for my eyebrows.

*I have a review essay forthcoming in which I discuss the use of phrases from the KJV to describe medieval Jewish communities in contemporary English-language scholarship. I’m critical of it there, but to me there’s something different about Jewish liturgists making a deliberate, intellectual choice to integrate through theologically non-problematic words and phrases and non-Jewish academics imposing theologically very problematic words and phrases on their Jewish subjects. I mention this here because I’m expecting a lot of criticism for the review essay and I don’t want inconsistency on this position to create extra room for more; the two contexts are quite different.

Translation Notes 2:2: Translating Languages in Contact

One of the challenges that I’m confronting in my translation project is how to render words into English that, in Spanish, preserve very clearly not only their Arabic etymology but the specificity of their meaning relating to the society and culture of the Islamic period in Spain. For now, some preliminary thoughts and problems. Eventually, perhaps, a proper essay.

Some of the words that come from Arabic also exist in English:

Mozárabe: We have the word Mozarab in English, but it’s not going to resonate for Anglophone readers as it does for Spanish readers, especially those who inhabit a country where one can still regularly attend Mass celebrated according to the Mozarab rite. The text introduces the Mozarabs in such a way that it’s not a problem. They may not feel as familiar to English readers, but those readers won’t really lose out on anything in this case.

Mesquino: I love being able to translate this as mesquin and keep the Arabic etymology of the Spanish word in place in the English.

However, there are also words that are more complicated to translate while preserving the linguistic and cultural layers that they encode.

Alcázar: Sure. It’s perfectly fine just to translate this word into English as castle, but in doing so, it loses the traces of the Arabic morphology and root — al-qasr — that are preserved in the Spanish; and for a text like this, where we are very much talking about castles built by people riffing on ideas of Arab identity, it’s important for that layer to be there.

Muladí: This is a hispanization of the Arabic word muwallad, which refers to non-Arabic Muslims, often from convert families. Between Heinrichs, Hitchcock, and Glick, there are some interesting discussions on how to translate the term, including the option “indigenous Muslims.” In literary non-fiction, though, these academic solutions lose the euphony of the Arabic that persists in the Spanish. Mulatto seems like it might be the best choice on this front; but it is not etymologically related in spite of how similar the two words might sound and, more importantly, it has such a different and specific set of connotations in English that I’m not sure it is usable in this context.

And then there are words that are regular, everyday words that the author highlights to help connect his Spanish-language readership to the Arabic substratum present in their own language. When he writes about the limits of urban political authority, he also gives his readers insight into the development of Spanish: “La única autoridad, nombrada por el cadí o directamente por el soberano, es el sahib al-suq, el señor del zoco, que se llamó luego muhtasib, de donde viene la hermosa palabra castellana almotacén.” To a Spanish-language reader, this is an illumination of her own language; to an English-language reader, it’s no more than a random factoid. Is my responsibility as a translator to leave it as written or to try to find a parallel example that will resonate with English readers in the same way the original resonates with Spanish readers?

Translating in a Time of Trump

(Or, How To Think Like a Literary Terrorist)

It is with absolute glee that I have returned to the literary translation project that I had to shelve 18 months ago in the interest of finishing my work and doing the kind of work that would count towards making me tenurable. Yes, I still have a bee in my bonnet about peer review and about what “counts,” but let’s shelve that for the moment in the interest of talking about a strange new nexus between literature and terrorism.

In the course of yesterday’s work, I arrived at a passage that discusses the Umayyad practice of crucifying convicts and the fear and displeasure it could inspire in the citizens of the capital city of Córdoba:

The promenade stretched out at the foot of the wall on the right bank of the river, unspooling a thread of fortresses and, sometimes, of crosses; for that is where the bodies of executed convicts were placed on public display. Amongst the smells of Córdoba that texts have preserved for us, one we have to overcome is the stench of rotting human flesh. Not for nothing does Ibn Khaldun (who knew everything) affirm that in the cities the air is cut with the putrid breath of filth and only thanks to the constant movement of people do waves of fresh air disperse those immovable humors.”

And because this is work for a general audience of readers, and because Islamophobic crimes and terrorist attacks have risen by order’s of magnitude since last year‘s presidential election, I found myself pausing to wonder how some general readers might misapprehend or misappropriate this graphic, smelly passage.

The white nationalists, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, sons of the Confederacy, and general racists, Islamophobes, and anti-Semites who have been dominating the news more and more (no, really, in spite of Trump having ruined that phrase for us, too) have shown themselves beyond willing to use the Middle Ages and classical antiquity to further their claims of religious hegemony and racial superiority. (For examples, see recent public interventions by my colleagues here, here, here, here, here, and here.) Their rhetoric is confused. On the one hand they use the term “medieval” to mean backwards and to criticize Islam. But on the other hand, they idealize the medieval as a time of racial purity. Crusading rhetoric has become commonplace in current political discourse. The Middle Ages is fair game for the racists who have proven themselves, over and over again, a hundred years ago and today, willing to kill for their cause.

The city walls of Córdoba during the Cruces de Mayo festival this year.

One of the terrible things about terrorism is that you have to start to think like a terrorist just to go about daily life: When I pack to go to the airport, I have to think about whether anything I’m packing might be or look like something I could hijack or crash or blow up a plane with just to be able to get through security. I have to think about the most logical path for a gunman through a building to be able to have an escape-or-barricade plan in mind just in case, to be able protect myself day to day. I wouldn’t think about how to crash planes or shoot people in buildings otherwise but for the rise of terrorism and my need to go on with my life around it and around the security (theater) measures it has necessitated. Terrorism breeds terroristic thinking.

And now — do I have to think like an Islamophobe or a white supremacist just to be able to do my work and do no harm? I must take into account how my translation project about medieval Islam might be used against modern, flesh-and-blood Muslims by white nationalist terrorists. I have to wonder whether the above passage might be seized out of the historical and narrative context of late antique and early Islamic crucifixion and out of the context of the love letter to Córdoba that I am translating and used instead to demonize any and all Muslims, medieval and modern, as… I don’t know. I don’t want to have to get seven feet ahead of deadly hatred by imagining hatred. I don’t want to be the one who demonizes my academic subjects and my friends, even if it is to protect them. These are lines I will not cross.

I find myself in a quandary: If I go ahead with this project, if I put this paragraph out in the world, I might be putting ammunition into the hands of terrorists. But if I quash it, I let those same terrorists dictate nothing less than the very course of history, medieval and modern; they would limit what people could know about the Middle Ages and limit what people in the present could say about it.

I will confess an unpopular opinion here: I am a free-speech absolutist. Incitement to violence? No way. But short of that? Sure. Even after this weekend I’m still the Jew who believes that Nazis should be allowed to march down Main St. and that I should then denounce them long and loud. I believe that we fight speech with speech. It’s a position that has been sullied lately by white dudebros who don’t really understand or believe in free speech, but rather who feel entitled, but it is one that is still carefully thought and actively defended by organizations such as the ACLU. (This Twitter thread by my colleague David Perry is a useful and clear articulation of the difference and the consequences.)

This is not a decision I take lightly or unaware of the potential real-world consequences. But I will translate, I will publish, and if it all goes badly wrong I will fight speech with speech and hope that it will be enough.