Spiritual and Poetic Chicanery
The most important point is that this book is NOT a book of translations of Hafez. Instead, it is a book of original poetry by Daniel Ladinsky, "inspired by" Hafez. Other reviewers have pointed this out, but obviously, this book's high rating and continued commercial success show that this is not well enough known. I purchased this for a poetry book discussion group, and now I feel ripped off. No one else there knew of this when I told them at the meeting (I only found out the day before, unfortunately), and were quite shocked. And these are people who have devoted their whole lives to poetry, including one who has done translation herself, so they're no rank amateurs. The person who suggested the book does not have Internet access, so I guess she didn't have a chance to do the research.
Ladinsky has tried to justify pawning off his own work as that of Hafiz, including his own review here, in a pathetic attempt to use a loose definition of translation and that, if it gets to a lot of people and makes people happy, what's the problem? Well, heroin and cocaine can be loosely reinterpreted as medicine (in fact people used to think it had medicinal properties), and some could say that once they become available, they become widespread and make people happy. But that don't make shooting up and snorting good things.
Ladinsky, as well Penguin (who, as far as I know, has been silent on the matter), should take responsibility for their deceitful action. And for those who try to say that Ladinsky doesn't claim to actually translate, or that Penguin went against his wishes (as he himself half-heartedly indicates): let's be clear. It says right on the cover "Translated by Daniel Ladinsky," and he has done other books saying the same thing. If it happened once, it shouldn't have happened again. Also, though he hm-haws about wanting to originally call the poems "versions," he doesn't disavow the end result, express regret or vow to work with a publisher who will be more honest in the future. No, he tries to justify his deceit by saying it is for our own good. Just like a cult leader.
If you have any doubt about this, compare Ladinsky's work with other translations of Hafez into English. You will quickly see the difference. The translations vary quite a bit stylistically--eg, Gertrude Bell's biblical-sounding 18th-century translation, Elizabeth T. Gray's more formal translation, and Thomas Rain Crowe's more colloquial translation. But the most loose translation is still very different from this.
Hafez is most known for his mastery of the ghazal, a poetic form which consists of five or more couplets, with a word or phrase from the second line of the first stanza repeated in the second line of each successive stanza. While some translators have forgone the formal structure of this form in order to attempt a more organic rhythm (such as Robert Bly and Leonard Lewisohn), the vestiges remain, creating the sense of an unfolding pattern, of insights unraveled. Not so with Ladinsky's verse, whose formal arrangement is quite abysmal, making frequent use of one or two word lines (which feels arbitrary rather than powerful), and line breaks that seem to have little rhyme or reason. The language is also usually simplistic, the use of metaphor awkward and often not interesting, so that from an aesthetic point of view, these could not be considered very good poems.
If there is any value here, it would have to be from a spiritual point of view. People claim, even after knowing that Ladinsky didn't actually translate these poems, that they still find the poems uplifting. Although couched in New Age style ideas, which seem rather "precious" and saccharine at times, I can see this; there is something joyous in reading poem after poem that encourages love and happiness so forcefully, and some of the verses do have a rather surprising and playful sense of humor (eg, "A Hard Decree," in which God posts a warning that those who can't find joy in life will feel the jaws of the world bite their sweet a--). The value of all this becomes problematic, pretty much ruined actually, by the knowledge that Ladinsky pretty much used Hafiz as a selling point. If these had been sold under his own name, or if it was marketed as "Inspired by" rather than "Translations of" that would be different.
It's not as though I imagine Ladinsky is completely unfamiliar with Hafez--some of the imagery and techniques in the book imply otherwise. But it is only a vague similarity; the celebration of drunkenness, the use of erotic or earthly love as a longing for God, being self-referential--these all appear in Hafez, but not quite in the ways Ladinsky renders them. Ladinsky is a bit over-the-top in his irreverence to the point of his tone actually seeming like a parody of Hafez, rather than a respectful tribute. Others have noted that the spirituality in here bears more resemblance to Zen Buddhism than Sufism, which I think has some relevance--the use of absurdity (like in "Two Giant Fat People"), the celebration of silence, seeing God in everything ("Courteous to the Ant"). Ladinsky mentions Allah (once, I think), and Muhammad a few times, but even those don't really say anything particularly interesting about Islam or Sufism, and as far as I know there aren't any references to the Quran--very different from the playful allusion to the Quran and Islamic and Zoroastrian (not referred to at all by Ladinsky) culture in the actual Hafez. So if you are looking to gleam something of Sufism from the "Sufi Master," you won't find it here.
Ladinsky talks about spending time with Meher Baba. If you look up info about Meher Baba, you will perhaps get a better idea of Ladinsky's background and influences. Meher Baba had more of a Hindu-type spirituality. I'm sorry, but the guy claimed to be an incarnation of God, and that makes me very suspicious. I only know a little of Sufism, but it seems to me even the most radical Sufi, if coming from a proper tradition, would find that to be utter blasphemy.
In conclusion, Ladinsky and Penguin should be ashamed of themselves for using the name of a greatly respected poet to sell books fraudulently. If Ladinsky were to take responsibility and try to work for a more honest output in the future, maybe he could be respected by some as a spiritual writer. But as it is, he does a disservice to himself as well as Hafez. And I am sad to think that people will not look for actual translations of Hafez, relying solely on Ladinsky's inventions, which are more accessible but not the same at all. Hafez' work deserves attention, and even the worst translation is better than no access at all--or worse yet, a fraud.