John Balaban has been known among American poets as one whose many works are best-sellers. These books are not about America, but of his English translations of well known Vietnamese poems, including a collection of poems in Nom scripts by famous poetess Ho Xuan Huong (in the 18th century) and “The Tale of Kieu” by the great poet Nguyen Du (in the 18th century).
Sitting on a bench near Hoan Kiem Lake in Hanoi , John Balaban told me why he chose poems by Ho Xuan Huong and Nguyen Du to translate into English. “I am a professor of English, and an American poet to be present in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. That might be the reason why I am encouraged to translate Vietnamese poems,” he said.
Balaban said 20,000 copies of his translation of Ho Xuan Huong’s poems published in 2000 were sold. It was such a “phenomenon” that the American press spent much time and effort studying it. President Bill Clinton, during his visit to Hanoi in 2000, also mentioned John’s translation as a cultural phenomenon of great concern in the United States at that time.
Actually, Balaban’s translation of Ho Xuan Huong´s poems helped many American readers understand the fate and strong response full of femininity of the Vietnamese women of the past. They were known for not only having virtues due to close ties to family education and principles, but also having strong characters. They dared to spell out the taboos of society such as sex and an intimate sexual life, etc., through poems which are pure, sensitive and graphic. Their response surprised many American readers because deep in their mind the American audience thought that those sensitive matters could only be spoken by them.
Balaban said he also wanted to bring American readers another story about life of the Vietnamese women in the feudal period. It was the poetic work "The Tale of Kieu” by great Vietnamese poet Nguyen Du (1766-1820), telling about the talented, but unhappy fate of a young woman - Kieu. According to Balaban, “The Tale of Kieu” is not only a literary masterpiece of the Vietnamese people, but it also concealed a lot of strange details. The strangest one is about the word “fate” defined by Buddhists, which seems to go along with, and was closely attached to Kieu’s talented, but misfortune life. For those reasons, Balaban decided to translate this poetic work into English with the whole-hearted feeling of an American poet full of passion and aspiration. (At the time John and I were talking, his translation of this work is being processed).
Saying farewell, Balaban asked me to reserve one copy of Vietnam Pictorial with the article about him and send it to him as a souvenir. I agreed. In addition I promised that when his English translation of “The Tale of Kieu” is made public, I will invite him to sit by Hoan Kiem Lake again, and I’ll listen to his story about the “fate” that tied him to the story of her life.
Professor John Balaban was born in 1943 in Philadelphia (USA). He is the Poet in Residence and Professor of English at North Carolina University in Raleigh, North Carolina ( USA ). He has many works about Vietnam, including “Ca Dao Vietnam: A Bilingual Anthology of Vietnamese Folk Poetry”, “ Vietnam – The Land We Never Knew” and “ Vietnam – A Traveler’s Literary Companion”. Of particular popularity is his translation of Ho Xuan Huong’s poems entitled “Spring Essence – The Poetry of Ho Xuan Huong”. John Balaban is now President of the Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation – an American non-governmental organization.
Story by Thanh Hoa -
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
The curious case of Hillary’s button
By Peter Lavelle
For years Russian-U.S. relations have been on the rocks. Megaphone diplomacy on both sides was considered the norm and benefited neither side. That is why U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public relations stunt of "resetting" this bilateral relationship is important to consider.
The makeshift button Clinton presented to the media and pressed together with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov read "reset" in English, but in Russian it was rendered as "reload." Not the best way to restart things.
The lost-in-translation part was put aside with kind words and high hopes. However, this linguistic error could be very telling, depending on how the next few months pan out.
Clinton's enthusiasm to recast the Russia-U.S. relationship says a lot about how the Bush administration got Russia wrong. The Bush people always wanted it to appear they reached out to Russia, but at about every possible juncture the Russians saw it differently.
Few remember that it was then President Vladimir Putin who first called George W. Bush after the 9/ll attacks - pledging support against the terrorists who attacked the United States. While Putin didn't like it, he didn't object to the U.S. military stationing a "temporary" base in Kyrgyzstan promoting Bush's "war on terror."
Putin didn't like it when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, but there was nothing Russia could do to stop it.
Putin didn't like Western funding of overtly anti-Russian "coloured revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia. But that was something Russia could do about. The more the United States tried to undermine Russia's neighbourhood to promote Washington's geopolitical interests, the more Moscow defended what it saw as its legitimate security interests.
Washington started this competition, not Russia. And because of geography, history and Washington's bad habit of not following through on so-called commitments to friends and allies, Russia has been given a new hearing in its neighbourhood.
The U.S. government is very close to its energy companies and has pressed hard to promote their interests in the energy-rich, post-Soviet space. At the same time, many in the West claim that Russia is using energy as a political weapon.
It is not amiss on the Russian side that mainstream media presents Western companies as merely looking for profit, while Russian companies only seek geopolitical advantage. As far as Moscow is concerned, this is a clear double standard. Russia's embrace of capitalism and the profit motive is genuine and scares the heck out its Western competitors.
The Bush people pushed hard to continue NATO's expansion eastwards. Russia strenuously objects to this. Russia cannot veto any country from joining a political, economic and military bloc, but it can and does speak out about its own security interests.
NATO does not present itself as a foe of Russia's; however it does not accept Moscow's self-defined security interests. This is a red line that Moscow will not compromise on.
Then there is the issue of security architecture. Obama has waffled on Bush's hard-line commitment to anti-missile defence in Europe. For Russia this is an existential threat. Any country - large or small - would rightfully be concerned if a new and modern military system was based close to its border. Given all the broken promises and smiles coming from the United States regarding Russia for almost 20 years, it's understandable that Russians want more than good intentions from their American counterparts.
Georgia's pre-emptive war against South Ossetia last August remains a very sour issue in Russia. America funded and trained Saakashvili's military. The same military killed Russian citizens and peacekeepers.
The trust level Russia has toward the new American administration is limited, to say the least. As long as the U.S. continues its military engagement of Georgia and promotes Tbilisi's NATO aspirations, the more likely it is that Moscow will view Washington with apprehension.
What will happen? Will it be the "re-set" or "reload" button? We still really don't know.
It seems to me that the new administration in Washington still doesn't see Russia to be all that important - it is deemed as a problematic country only to be dealt with. But all the same there is the recognition that not much can be done on many global issues without Russia's engagement and help.
Viewed from the Potomac, Russia remains a bridesmaid. This is a huge mistake inherited not from the George Bush administration - look further back to Bill Clinton's time in office to understand this.
I must admit I remain sceptical. I have no doubt there was an obvious and embarrassing translation error made when Clinton gave the button to Lavrov. But I can't but help sense that the same tried and failed policies toward Russia remain in play. The "reload" translation is somehow not serendipity.
For almost 20 years, Republican, Democratic, Republican - and now again Democratic administrations have continued the same ritual. They all believe that they only have to explain why the United States never threatens the world and that everyone should agree with it. And they believe Russia should not question this proposition.
Yet Russia is not interested in diplomatic PR, it seeks reliable partners. Partnership is the button that needs to be pressed.
Peter Lavelle is the host of Russia Today's weekly analysis programme ‘In Context'
For years Russian-U.S. relations have been on the rocks. Megaphone diplomacy on both sides was considered the norm and benefited neither side. That is why U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public relations stunt of "resetting" this bilateral relationship is important to consider.
The makeshift button Clinton presented to the media and pressed together with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov read "reset" in English, but in Russian it was rendered as "reload." Not the best way to restart things.
The lost-in-translation part was put aside with kind words and high hopes. However, this linguistic error could be very telling, depending on how the next few months pan out.
Clinton's enthusiasm to recast the Russia-U.S. relationship says a lot about how the Bush administration got Russia wrong. The Bush people always wanted it to appear they reached out to Russia, but at about every possible juncture the Russians saw it differently.
Few remember that it was then President Vladimir Putin who first called George W. Bush after the 9/ll attacks - pledging support against the terrorists who attacked the United States. While Putin didn't like it, he didn't object to the U.S. military stationing a "temporary" base in Kyrgyzstan promoting Bush's "war on terror."
Putin didn't like it when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, but there was nothing Russia could do to stop it.
Putin didn't like Western funding of overtly anti-Russian "coloured revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia. But that was something Russia could do about. The more the United States tried to undermine Russia's neighbourhood to promote Washington's geopolitical interests, the more Moscow defended what it saw as its legitimate security interests.
Washington started this competition, not Russia. And because of geography, history and Washington's bad habit of not following through on so-called commitments to friends and allies, Russia has been given a new hearing in its neighbourhood.
The U.S. government is very close to its energy companies and has pressed hard to promote their interests in the energy-rich, post-Soviet space. At the same time, many in the West claim that Russia is using energy as a political weapon.
It is not amiss on the Russian side that mainstream media presents Western companies as merely looking for profit, while Russian companies only seek geopolitical advantage. As far as Moscow is concerned, this is a clear double standard. Russia's embrace of capitalism and the profit motive is genuine and scares the heck out its Western competitors.
The Bush people pushed hard to continue NATO's expansion eastwards. Russia strenuously objects to this. Russia cannot veto any country from joining a political, economic and military bloc, but it can and does speak out about its own security interests.
NATO does not present itself as a foe of Russia's; however it does not accept Moscow's self-defined security interests. This is a red line that Moscow will not compromise on.
Then there is the issue of security architecture. Obama has waffled on Bush's hard-line commitment to anti-missile defence in Europe. For Russia this is an existential threat. Any country - large or small - would rightfully be concerned if a new and modern military system was based close to its border. Given all the broken promises and smiles coming from the United States regarding Russia for almost 20 years, it's understandable that Russians want more than good intentions from their American counterparts.
Georgia's pre-emptive war against South Ossetia last August remains a very sour issue in Russia. America funded and trained Saakashvili's military. The same military killed Russian citizens and peacekeepers.
The trust level Russia has toward the new American administration is limited, to say the least. As long as the U.S. continues its military engagement of Georgia and promotes Tbilisi's NATO aspirations, the more likely it is that Moscow will view Washington with apprehension.
What will happen? Will it be the "re-set" or "reload" button? We still really don't know.
It seems to me that the new administration in Washington still doesn't see Russia to be all that important - it is deemed as a problematic country only to be dealt with. But all the same there is the recognition that not much can be done on many global issues without Russia's engagement and help.
Viewed from the Potomac, Russia remains a bridesmaid. This is a huge mistake inherited not from the George Bush administration - look further back to Bill Clinton's time in office to understand this.
I must admit I remain sceptical. I have no doubt there was an obvious and embarrassing translation error made when Clinton gave the button to Lavrov. But I can't but help sense that the same tried and failed policies toward Russia remain in play. The "reload" translation is somehow not serendipity.
For almost 20 years, Republican, Democratic, Republican - and now again Democratic administrations have continued the same ritual. They all believe that they only have to explain why the United States never threatens the world and that everyone should agree with it. And they believe Russia should not question this proposition.
Yet Russia is not interested in diplomatic PR, it seeks reliable partners. Partnership is the button that needs to be pressed.
Peter Lavelle is the host of Russia Today's weekly analysis programme ‘In Context'
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Implementation of New National Translation Program for Book Publishing
Mar 03, 2009 10:00 ET
Implementation of New National Translation Program for Book Publishing
The Government Delivers on Its Commitments to Linguistic Duality and Canadian Culture
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - March 3, 2009) - The Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, today announced the implementation of the new National Translation Program for Book Publishing, designed to increase the availability of Canadian books in both official languages. Through this program, the Government is delivering on the commitment it made when it announced the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality last June.
"Our Government wants to give as many Canadians as possible access to the enormous wealth of our country's culture and literature," said Minister Moore. "The new program will also help our authors gain recognition in new markets, thereby strengthening the financial health of Canada's book publishing industry."
Starting April 1, 2009, the Government will invest $5 million over four years in this program, which will help publishers in Canada translate Canadian-authored books into English and French. To minimize administrative costs and implementation time, and to take advantage of existing expertise, administration of the program is being entrusted to the Canada Council for the Arts for 2009-2010, and the arrangement can be renewed annually. The Government is pleased to be able to draw on the experience and administrative structure already in place at the Council to provide this new support to publishers.
"Our Government's commitment is unwavering. This strategic investment allows the Government to support our linguistic duality, the reach of our culture, and our economy," concluded Minister Moore.
"This is wonderful news for Canadian readers, publishers, and literary translators," said Robert Sirman, Director of the Canada Council for the Arts. "The Council welcomes the federal government's commitment today, as it shows confidence in the Council and its ability to deliver additional support for translation. The Council is looking forward to receiving the money in the coming months, when it will be in a position to allocate it to grant recipients."
The Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality is an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years. Its new arts and culture component includes more than $20 million and is in addition to funding of more than half a billion dollars over the next two years under Budget 2009 to support the arts, culture, and heritage.
This news release is available on the Internet at www.canadianheritage.gc.ca under Media Room.
BACKGROUNDER
Objectives
The Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, released in June 2008, includes $5 million to increase the number of books available in both official languages by helping Canadian publishers translate works of Canadian authors into English and French. For Canadians, this will mean greater access to the cultural wealth and literature of the country's Anglophone and Francophone communities, in both official languages.
The investments announced today add to the $68 million already invested annually by the Government in Canadian writing and book publishing. This is provided through Canadian Heritage's Book Publishing Industry Development Program ($37 million) and the Canada Council for the Arts, including the Public Lending Right Commission (a total of $31.1 million in 2007-2008).
Delivery mechanism
After studying various options, the Government selected the Council to deliver the new program. The intention expressed in the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality to provide "greater access to the cultural wealth and literature of the country" is directly aligned with the mandate of the Council, which is to "to foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production of works in, the arts." Moreover, the Council already has a Translation Grants Program in place, and building on this existing infrastructure will reduce administrative costs and avoid duplication. This is an opportunity not only to deliver the program efficiently, but also to draw on the Council's expertise and experience in this area. The Council will also be able to provide timely support through grants that offset the high upfront costs associated with translations.
Canada Council for the Arts
The Canada Council is a federal Crown corporation created by an act of Parliament in 1957. The Council offers a broad range of grants and services to professional Canadian artists and arts organizations in dance, integrated (multidisciplinary) art, media arts, music, theatre, visual arts, and writing and publishing. It also promotes public awareness of the arts through its communications, research, and arts promotion activities. The Public Lending Right Commission and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO also operate under the aegis of the Canada Council.
Eligibility criteria for the National Translation Program for Book Publishing
Funding will be provided for literary translations produced by Canadian publishers already taking part in the Council's book publishing support programs. Concentrating support in this manner will help to ensure sufficient per-title grants to provide an incentive for the production of new translations.
The federal government will continue to support translations of non-literary titles through Canadian Heritage's Book Publishing Industry Development Program. This program, which provides sales-based formula funding to a broad range of publishers, directs more than $2 million annually to publishers for their translation work. A majority of this amount goes to educational and general trade publishers.
For more information on the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, visit www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/slo-ols/strat-eng.cfm.
For more information on the Canada Council for the Arts and its writing and publishing assistance programs, visit www.canadacouncil.ca/writing.
For more information on Canada's publishing policies, visit www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/padie-bpidp/liv-bk/index-eng.cfm.
For more information, please contact
Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage
and Official Languages
Deirdra McCracken
Director of Communications
819-997-7788
deirdra.mccracken@pch.gc.ca
or
Canadian Heritage
Media Relations
819-994-9101
1-866-569-6155
Implementation of New National Translation Program for Book Publishing
The Government Delivers on Its Commitments to Linguistic Duality and Canadian Culture
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - March 3, 2009) - The Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, today announced the implementation of the new National Translation Program for Book Publishing, designed to increase the availability of Canadian books in both official languages. Through this program, the Government is delivering on the commitment it made when it announced the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality last June.
"Our Government wants to give as many Canadians as possible access to the enormous wealth of our country's culture and literature," said Minister Moore. "The new program will also help our authors gain recognition in new markets, thereby strengthening the financial health of Canada's book publishing industry."
Starting April 1, 2009, the Government will invest $5 million over four years in this program, which will help publishers in Canada translate Canadian-authored books into English and French. To minimize administrative costs and implementation time, and to take advantage of existing expertise, administration of the program is being entrusted to the Canada Council for the Arts for 2009-2010, and the arrangement can be renewed annually. The Government is pleased to be able to draw on the experience and administrative structure already in place at the Council to provide this new support to publishers.
"Our Government's commitment is unwavering. This strategic investment allows the Government to support our linguistic duality, the reach of our culture, and our economy," concluded Minister Moore.
"This is wonderful news for Canadian readers, publishers, and literary translators," said Robert Sirman, Director of the Canada Council for the Arts. "The Council welcomes the federal government's commitment today, as it shows confidence in the Council and its ability to deliver additional support for translation. The Council is looking forward to receiving the money in the coming months, when it will be in a position to allocate it to grant recipients."
The Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality is an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years. Its new arts and culture component includes more than $20 million and is in addition to funding of more than half a billion dollars over the next two years under Budget 2009 to support the arts, culture, and heritage.
This news release is available on the Internet at www.canadianheritage.gc.ca under Media Room.
BACKGROUNDER
Objectives
The Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, released in June 2008, includes $5 million to increase the number of books available in both official languages by helping Canadian publishers translate works of Canadian authors into English and French. For Canadians, this will mean greater access to the cultural wealth and literature of the country's Anglophone and Francophone communities, in both official languages.
The investments announced today add to the $68 million already invested annually by the Government in Canadian writing and book publishing. This is provided through Canadian Heritage's Book Publishing Industry Development Program ($37 million) and the Canada Council for the Arts, including the Public Lending Right Commission (a total of $31.1 million in 2007-2008).
Delivery mechanism
After studying various options, the Government selected the Council to deliver the new program. The intention expressed in the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality to provide "greater access to the cultural wealth and literature of the country" is directly aligned with the mandate of the Council, which is to "to foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production of works in, the arts." Moreover, the Council already has a Translation Grants Program in place, and building on this existing infrastructure will reduce administrative costs and avoid duplication. This is an opportunity not only to deliver the program efficiently, but also to draw on the Council's expertise and experience in this area. The Council will also be able to provide timely support through grants that offset the high upfront costs associated with translations.
Canada Council for the Arts
The Canada Council is a federal Crown corporation created by an act of Parliament in 1957. The Council offers a broad range of grants and services to professional Canadian artists and arts organizations in dance, integrated (multidisciplinary) art, media arts, music, theatre, visual arts, and writing and publishing. It also promotes public awareness of the arts through its communications, research, and arts promotion activities. The Public Lending Right Commission and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO also operate under the aegis of the Canada Council.
Eligibility criteria for the National Translation Program for Book Publishing
Funding will be provided for literary translations produced by Canadian publishers already taking part in the Council's book publishing support programs. Concentrating support in this manner will help to ensure sufficient per-title grants to provide an incentive for the production of new translations.
The federal government will continue to support translations of non-literary titles through Canadian Heritage's Book Publishing Industry Development Program. This program, which provides sales-based formula funding to a broad range of publishers, directs more than $2 million annually to publishers for their translation work. A majority of this amount goes to educational and general trade publishers.
For more information on the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, visit www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/slo-ols/strat-eng.cfm.
For more information on the Canada Council for the Arts and its writing and publishing assistance programs, visit www.canadacouncil.ca/writing.
For more information on Canada's publishing policies, visit www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/padie-bpidp/liv-bk/index-eng.cfm.
For more information, please contact
Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage
and Official Languages
Deirdra McCracken
Director of Communications
819-997-7788
deirdra.mccracken@pch.gc.ca
or
Canadian Heritage
Media Relations
819-994-9101
1-866-569-6155
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)