While I accept that reviews are an individual's subjective opinions, I must correct some of the factual errors in Martin Anderson's review in Shearsman 58 concerning my collection of poetry, Reversion.

The reviewer declares that the 'appropriations' from other languages are 'not translations'. First, while on the back cover one commentator is quoted as describing them as translations, the pieces from the Bhagavad-gita and Njal's Saga have not been described by myself as translations. Indeed, I refer the reviewer to 'Godsong' and 'A Matter of Honour', in which the full texts are described as 'transliterations'. There is no pretence to be an expert in ancient Icelandic or Sanskrit. The translations of Cathal O Searcaigh's Irish poems are, though, by me from the Irish. However, the reviewer should know that there is a tradition of 'literary translation', which people like his hero Heaney appear to have indulged in (is The Cure at Troy a translation from the original language by Heaney? Or does he not also rely on translations as cribs for his literary version?). Also, I have not in these two major pieces used only one translation, but have studied reasons for different translations, and used several, and taken the best of them all. Also, I have especially with the Bhagavad-gita attempted to remain true to the spiritual philosophy of that work, and it was vetted by Vaisnava (Hindu) scholars before completion. In any case, others have said these pieces justify being called 'translations' and that I do not give myself credit enough when calling them 'transliterations'. 

The reviewer takes issue with describing the Battle of Kurukshetra (in the Bhagavad-gita) as a 'fracas' as he sees this as a pitched battle between armies. First, one of course employs some poetic licence. Second, the speaker in the piece, Arjuna, is struggling with the prospect of engaging in a civil war with family on the opposite side, is in his own mind trying to cope with the enormity of what lies before him by dismissing it as a silly feud which shouldn't be taking place at all in his mind, he is reluctant to take part in it, so I feel it is justified that he might in his angst use this kind of term to refer to it. Both these long pieces also contain the inevitable resonances re the Northern Irish 'Troubles', which might proffer additional poignancy to them.

The reviewer quotes from one poem, rendering it into prose lines and declares it lacks rhythmic cadence and is 'bland discursiveness'. The lines as I present them are delineated by the spoken word, to my mind this particular piece is very much a performance one, and the power of the delivery may rest in the gutteral Ulster brogue that punctuates it as people from this part of the world would utter it. Also, the reviewer uses this free verse piece as an example, whereas the collection contains many more formal pieces, such as 'The Martyrdom of Servetus', 'Clytemnestra', 'Dowsing', 'Quern', 'Who Dares Wins', and many more which the reviewer does not appear to take into consideration at all. So his view that 'Revelation' is 'not untypical' of the collection is a strange view to hold and one that I believe few careful readers will share.

Copyright © Niall McGrath, 2004.