Lost In Translation

Literature In a Consumer Society

Ivo Frbežar

Lost In Translation

The theme is only seemingly modern because the term “consumer society” is placed into the modern era – in time of “fast food”, McDonalds, Coca Cola, Nescafe, shopping centers, and ultimately Amazon. This time brought surrogates and competitive price no matter the subject of production, supply and sales market. And only market succeses and (consequently) profits matter in this time.

This is a topic that can be debated on two levels: academic  and economic, personal or general. This is a topic about which I can speak as a poet. And a topic about which an economist and the consumer can speak, too. The latter ones will advocate economic logic, and will strongly be opposed by a poet. Dichotomy, denoted by a different vocabulary, already exists for centuries. The first one is close to »craftsman’s« logic and thinking, the other one is close to demiurge and his status in the art. Both of them (as they always have) today stand on the opposite banks , and agree only that they do not agree with each other. The poet (of all the arts), who has always hade a status close to God, is the most radical opposition. The matter is even more twisted and contradictory since it was joined by the so-called global market and the new »lingua franca« – English language. Clutching the cheap goods has become a fixture in the arts. »the market« is the one in the background, and offers the best bargains. Marketing, promotion and PR can not be absent in this category. Although it does not seem at first sight, the book (and literature more specifically) found itself in a dilemma, even more so for being overtaken (on the right side) by other »arts«. Although the book is still special to us, something that simply can not dissapear, in time of »fast food« and »surrogates« the book either withdraws in the underground or is today being born as a »project«. Being »part of the underground« (as we know from history) can also be an advantage – as a subversive force. Risky argument? Perhaps. Poetry still has its irreplaceable role. The novel (as such) itself is being successfully pushed out by various tv series aimd at masses, »plebs«. Although (in some ways) the novel was born in a similar way – as a continuation of the feuilletons. It was not replaced by film – they were mostly complementary (in terms of the script or the finished »product«). Poetry is fortunate for being impossible so change in the tv series. Even in case of successfull transformation it would be »a priori« and in its essence unacceptable. Poetry »without caffeine« is simply impossible.

This does not mean that the poetry and its perception are today without any problems. Together with the descent from the bookshelves, poetry slowly descents from its unique inherent pedestal and position of power. It is becoming a substitute for snapping for love rather than love itself, it is increasingly becoming a replacement for snapping the divine, rather than being inherently divine. Increasingly, of course, the top top quality one remains closed in its garden, in its ghetto. It is becoming even more misunderstood, although it is supposed to be all the more understandable to any kind of mind. This is exploited by those who are supposed to help her, and those who impose their surrogate-liked-by-everyone-poetry – whether it’s speculation or naive simplicity. Poetry can be killed, too – just like horses. In that matter, I would first like bo define and identify myself as a poet. As soon as one submits himself to the market, one lose their freedom, even poetic freedom, which makes one a credible poet, with integrity and essence. The rational spirit would at this time throw out a well known argument that a poet writes for the people, for others, for the health of their mind,  body, and even the national health’s spirit. That’s why it is willy-nilly affected by various proposals and scourges. In this case the poet is not supposed to be free at all! The politicians wanted to claim him in the past (religion, moralists, the same people that mourn the definitively lost time that made that possible for them). It is in fact a never ending story! On the other hand the poetry wants to be something that has no connection to it. They tell us that poetry may be everything today – from a song to a quirk (so to speak). We are used to banalise everything possible – under various-or-not-at-all-excuses. This most fatally reflects in the perception of poetry.  The poet therefore remains misunderstood and often even ridiculed today. (That happened in history, too, as we know it!). The poet therefore remains all by himself, bound only by his own language … And hopes that his songs will still find someone to read them. Thank goodness, truth be told, this also is happening.

Here we move on to the next problem, implied by the subtitles of this thinking: »Lost in translation!« Clearly, I have borrowed the phrase from the famous movie. But I am essentially talking about the fact that in a globalized world one language is clearly dominant. Literary work – not translated, not supported by adequate marketing and PR promotion – has very little chance of success in today’s so-called global world, where »useful books«, manuals and books with tips for a happy life and love (»non-fiction« books) prevail. Let me return to poetry: the formula for success is Brodski – unwanted, misunderstood, brilliant Russian poet who has achieved world fame only as a dissident poet, when he received a scholarship from the MacArthur Foundation in 1981 and won  the best poet of the United States prize in 1991-92. What I want to say is that poetry in mother tougue is basically a privilege that cannot be nullified by any prize, no matter the global success and who and how many readers it reaches (and/or is needed for success by global market). Today’s availability of literature (be it a novel, a short story or internet poetry) does not significantly contribute learning about other types of literature, the marginal ones as well. Unfortunately this form of cultural imperialism still exists. Through my years of working with the World PEN and TLRC (Translation and Linguistic Rights Comm.), my own experience is disappointing. National literatures remain on the margins of the global market (or even sealed in their own national/nationalist space). There are organizations, links – most often on the level of personal engagement and personal connections of writers, translators, enthusiasts themselves …

Quite often all this is accompanied by loss of criteria, evaluation, and even the understanding of literature (especially poetry). And lately also on the prevailing social networks as Facebook and others, where a part of literary publishing migrates. Of course, and thank God, there are exceptions. A lot of editors and publishers have moved to the World Wide Web where they operate according to the same principles as in the classic publishing, specializing in literary and art magazines, etc. As far as I can see, they often have questionable criteria for the evaluation of literature. Essentially, there is a considerable analogy to conventional publishing and attitude towards literature. There is however one advantage – WWW can not be dominated by large companies, whic can dictate the trends wit prizes, elitism and their own narrow self-infatuated circles. These usually happens with specialised literary magazines, closed literary circles and, ultimately, with the already mentioned established publishing houses.

I find it interesting and characteristical that small, interesting, independent publishers, which proved to be a fresh wind in the literary market in many countries are disappearing in recent years. Who remains? Only the »big players« and a crowd of self-published authors. I thing that both leads to a decline in literature and publishing. The first ones favor global bestsellers (libraries also follow that trend – these same authors and books are found on the exposed shelves and counters). The second ones publish any kind of »literature«, even amateur love poetry and novelettes. Today’s self-publishing options with a relatively small investment  allows virtually anyone to issue »his own book«. As far as I understand and know the situation i the different countries (at least in Europe), there are no significant differences.

My thinking remains on the level of thinking poet, artist on one side, a literary comparativist on the second side and a PR consultant on the third side. It would of course be ideal to support this thinking/speculation by empirical research, but I think that such or similar research is already accessible and hopefully relevant (certain of my conclusions derive from them after all, and not just from personal experience). Especially her, the most sincere, most painful – of a poet.

Ivo Frbežar, Mala Ilova Gora, Slovenia; August, 2015

Izgubljeno v prevodu

Književnost v potrošniški družbi

Ivo Frbéžar

Izgubljeno v prevodu

 

Tema, ki je samo na videz sodobna, ker termin »potrošniška družba« pač umeščamo v sodoben čas. V čas, ki pozna »fast food«, McDonalds, Coca Colo, Nescafe, trgovske centre, konec koncev tudi Amazon. To je čas, ki je prinesel surogate in konkurenčno ceno ne glede na predmet proizvodnje, ponudbe, prodaje in trga. To je čas, za katerega je relevanten le tržni uspeh in, posledično, dobiček.

 

To je tema o kateri lahko debatiramo na dveh nivojih: akademskem in ekonomskem, osebnem ali splošnem.  To je tema o kateri lahko govorim kot pesnik in tema o kateri lahko govorita, konec koncev, ekonomist in potrošnik. Slednja bosta (in to tudi počneta) zagovarjala ekonomsko logiko, tej pa bo ostro nasprotoval pesnik. Dihotomija, označevana z drugačnim besednjakom, obstaja namreč že stoletja. Prva je blizu obrtniški logiki in razmišljanju, druga je blizu demiurgu in njegovemu statusu v umetnosti. Oba danes, tako kot nekdaj, stojita na nasprotnem bregu, in sta si enotna edino v nerazumevanju. Od vse umetnosti ji mogoče še najbolj radikalno ugovarja pesnik, ki ima že od nekdaj status, ki je blizu božjega. Da je lahko zadeva še bolj sprevržena in nasprotujoča, se ji je pridružil t.i. globalni trg in nova »lingua franca«, angleščina. Hlastanje za poceni dobrinami je postalo stalnica tudi na področju umetnosti; »trg« je tisti, ki v ozadju, ponuja najboljše za ugodno ceno. Marketing, promocija in PR, v tej kategoriji, ne more izostati. Knjiga, književnost še posebej, se je znašla v zagati, čeprav tega, na prvi pogled ni opaziti. Seveda tudi zato, ker jo po desni, med drugim,  prehitevajo »druge umetnosti«. Čeprav še vedno prisegamo na knjigo kot nekaj posebnega, nekaj kar preprosto ne more izginiti, se ta, v času »fast fooda« in »surogatov«, umika skorajda v ilegalo ali pa se danes rojeva kot »projekt«.  Ilegala pa ima, kot vemo iz zgodovine, lahko tudi prednost, namreč kot subverzivna sila. Tvegana trditev? Mogoče. Poezija ima, manj kot roman pri tem še vedno svojo nenadomestljivo vlogo. Roman sam, kot tak, že manj, saj ga uspešno spodrivajo tudi tv nadaljevanke namenjene množicam, plebsu …, čeprav se je na nek način tudi roman rodil na podoben način – kot nadaljevanja v podlistkih. Film romana ni izpodrinil, kvečjemu sta se dopolnjevala, pa naj bo to v smislu scenarija ali končnega »izdelka«. Poezija ima to srečo, da jo je nemogoče spremeniti v tv nadaljevanko; tudi če bi to komu nekako uspelo, bi bila apriori oz. v svojem bistvu nesprejemljiva. Poezija brez »kofeina« je pač nemogoča.

To pa ne pomeni, da je poezija in njena percepcija danes brez problema. S sestopom s knjižne police in svojevrstnega prirojenega piedestala počasi sestopa tudi s svoje pozicije moči. Vse bolj postaja zamenjava za hlastanje po ljubezni namesto ljubezni same, vse bolj postaja zamenjava za hlastanje po božjem, namesto da bi bila sama po sebi božanska. Vse bolj, seveda vrhunska, ostaja zaprta v svojem vrtu, v svojem getu. Postaja vse bolj nerazumljena, čeprav bi mora biti vse bolj razumljiva vsakršnemu umu. To izkoriščajo tako tisti, ki bi ji morali pomagati, kot tisti, ki vsiljujejo svojo surogatno vsemovšečno pesnikovanje – pa naj gre za preračunljivost ali naivno preproščino. Tudi poezijo je namreč mogoče ubiti – tako kot je mogoče ubiti konje. V tem primeru se bom do zadeve opredelil najprej prav kot pesnik. Takoj, ko se podredim diktatu trga, izgubim svojo svobodo, jasno, tudi pesniško svobodo, ta pa pogojuje vso verodostojnost mene pesnika, moje integritete, mojega  bistva. V tem trenutku racionalni duh vrže na plano znano trditev, da pesnik piše za ljudi, za druge, za zdravje njihovega duha in celo telesa. Celo za zdravje narodnega duha. In zato ga hočeš nočeš doletijo razne »na(d)loge«. Potemtakem, naj bi pesnik sploh ne bi bil svoboden? Nekdaj so se ga hoteli polastili politiki (to , religije, nravstveniki, danes taisti jamrajo za dokončno izgubljenim časom, ki jim je to omogočal. V bistvu gre za »never ending story«! Po drugi strani pa hoče biti poezija marsikaj kar s poezijo nima povezave. Skušajo nam (do)povedati, da je poezija danes lahko vse. Od popevke do domislice, takorekoč. Navadili smo se zbanalizirati prav vse, kar je zbanalizirati mogoče. Pod raznimi izgovori, ki to so ali niso. Najbolj usodno se to odraža prav pri percepciji poezije. Pesnik zato danes ostaja nerazumljen, nemalokrat celo zasmehovan. (No ja, kot da se to v zgodovini, kot vemo, ni dogajalo!) Pesniku tako ne ostane drugega kot da ostane sam, zavezan svojemu lastnemu jeziku … in upa, da bo njegova pesem vedno našla bralca. Hvala bogu, resnici na ljubo, se to tudi dogaja.

Tu prehajamo k naslednjemu problemu, ki ga implicira podnaslov tega razmišljanja: »Izgubljenjo v prevodu!« Jasno, da sem si to izposodil iz znanega filma. V bistvu pa gre za to, da v globalnem svetu vse bolj prevladuje en jezik. Neprevedeno literarno delo, nepodprto z ustrezno marketinško in PR promocijo nima veliko možnosti za uspeh v današnjem t.i. globalnem svetu, kjer pravladujejo knjige uporabnih vrednosti, nasvetov za srečno življenje (vključno z ljubeznijo), priročnikov, t.i. »non-fiction« književnosti. Če se spet vrnem k poeziji: Formula za uspeh je recimo postal Brodski, nezaželjen, nerazumljen, briljanten ruski pesnik, ki pa je svetovno slavo dosegel šele kot disident, pesnik, ko je leta 1981. prejel štipendijo fondacije MacArthur in leta 1991. –1992., ko je dobil nagrado kot najboljši pesnik Združenih držav Amerike. Hočem povedati, da je pesnenje v lastnem maternem jeziku v bistvu privilegij, ki ga ne more izničiti nikakršna nagrada, ne glede na to koga/katerega in koliko bralcev dosega in koliko je globalno uspešen – pravzaprav koliko in kaj globalni trg danes narekuje in pogojuje to t.i. uspešnost. Današnja dostopnost književnosti, pa naj bo to roman, kratka zgodba ali poezija preko internetnih povezav, bistveno ne pripomore k spoznavanju drugih, tudi t.i. marginalnih književnosti. Ta oblika kulturnega imperializma, na žalost še vedno obstaja. Skozi izkušnje mojega večletnega dela v okviru Svetovnega PEN-a in Odbora za prevajanje in in jezikovne pravice (TLRC, Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee), so moje izkušnje prav take, t.j. porazne. Tako nacionalne književnosti ostajajo na margini globalnega trga ali celo zaprte v svoj nacionalni prostor (včasih celo nacionalističen). Seveda obstajajo organizacije, povezave, mnogokrat ali največkrat na nivoju osebnega prizadevanja in osebnih povezav književnikov samih, prevajalcev, entuziastov …

Nemalokrat se pri tem izgubljajo tudi pravi kriteriji, vrednotenje, celo razumevanje literature, še posebej poezije. V zadnjem času seveda tudi na prevladujočih socialnih mrežah kot so Facebook in drugi, kamor se »seli« del literarnega objavljanja. Seveda, in hvala bogu, obstajajo tudi izjeme. Nemalo urednikov in založnikov se je preselilo na svetovni splet kjer delujejo po istih principih kot je bilo to v navadi v klasičnem založništvu, specializiranih literarnih, umetnosti odprtih revijah, itd. Kolikor opažam, pa so kriteriji vrednotenja književnosti, nemalokrat vprašljivi. V bistvu gre za precejšno analogijo s klasičnim založništvom in odnosom do književnosti kot take. Res je edino to, da na spletu ne morejo prevladovati velike založbe, ki diktirajo, če že hočete, trende z nagradami, vsakršnim elitizmom in  svojimi lastnimi ozkimi vase zaverovanimi krogi. Ti se običajno začenjajo že s specializirani literarnimi revijami, nadaljujejo, nemalokrat, z zaprtimi literarnimi krogi in nenazadnje z že omenjenimi etabliranimi založbami.

Zanimivo se mi zdi, in značilno, da v zadnjih letih izginjajo manjše, zanimive, neodvisne založbe, ki so prinašale svež veter na književni trg v marsikateri deželi. Ostajo veliki igralci in množica samozaložnikov. Oboje, po mojem, pelje v nazadovanje književnosti in založniške dejavnosti. Prvi favorizirajo svetovne bestsellerje (temu trendu zvesto sledijo tudi splošne knjižnice) – na izpostavljenih knjižnih policah in pultih se bohotijo prav ti, drugi pa prednjačijo v izdajanju vsakršne, tudi t.i. ljubiteljsko zapisane ljubavne romančiče, srce parajoče zgodbice in bloge, in seveda, pesnikovanja. Današnje možnosti »samo«založništva z relativno malim vlaganjem omogoča, da takorekoč vsakdo izda »svojo knjigo«. Kolikor poznam situacijo po različnih državah, vsaj v evropskem prostoru, kakšnih bistvenih razlik ni ali jih ni zaznati.

Moje razmišljanje tako po eni strani ostaja na nivoju razmišljanja pesnika, avtorja, po drugi strani komparativista, in po, ne nazadnje, tretji, svetovalca odnosov za javnosti. Seveda bi bilo idealno, da to razmišljanje podprem z empiričnimi raziskavami, vendar menim, da so take ali vsaj podobne raziskave dostopne (konec koncev nekaj mojih sklepov izhaja tudi iz njih, torej ne samo iz osebnih izkušenj) in da so, upam, dokaj relevantne. Še najbolj ona, najiskrenejša, nabolj boleča, pesniška.

 

Ivo Frbéžar, Mala Ilova Gora, Slovenija; avgust, 2015