Hyun Woo Kim is the person behind Three Hundred Tang Poems. He translates a poem each week, accompanied by his commentary on the piece. His depth of knowledge on Chinese literature and history is remarkable, and reading it reminds me that I have a lot of reading to catch up on to rediscover my literary roots! I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing him, and I hope readers who enjoy Chinese literature will enjoy this deep dive into poetry, translation and more.
Also, in my view, Red Pine is the Tree of Chinese PoetryTranslators.
Perhaps Hyun Woo Kim will have a similar moniker soon enough. (But first they might rethink the idea that Putonghua, a recent invention, is Standard Chinese. Taiwanese and Hong Kong folk would grumble about that! 🙏😅
This is a fascinating point! I would then argue for the 46-266 other dialect-speakers in China (such as Wu/Shanghainese, Hakka, those spoken by the ethnicity minorities) would then ask “what about us”? Just as how there are many languages in India but for many areas the lingua franca is Hindi, Mandarin is also something rising out of necessity for such a big country.
But “recent” is actually a fascinating point. One of my uni professors once said that because of the (relatively) unchanging nature of the dialects, it is more accurate to read Tang poetry in Cantonese than it is in Mandarin (i.e. more words rhyme). I don’t know where the validity of the claim comes from or what research backs it up and I don’t know enough to support or refute it, but it makes me wonder how the ancients really sounded when they spoke so many years ago.
I do have a Ho號, but I rarely use it unless I am giving away books after sealing them!
The idea of “Standard Chinese” can be sometimes controversial indeed, and it is not only a linguistic matter but also a political one. I would rather let Clare talk about how she feels about it as a Hong Konger. Honestly, I am not a big fan of the term “Putonghua普通話” either, which asserts that it has become the standard, common Chinese language. However, I believe it has already somewhat become so, thanks to both Kuomintang, which first introduced the idea of it, and the Chinese Communist Party. My preferred term is “Guanhua官話”, the official language or the language of the officials, although this term could be understood as the language spoken in the courts of Beijing during the Ming-Qing era, and I chose not to use it for that reason. As Putonghua, though standardized, comes from Guanhua of the preceding times, I wouldn’t necessarily consider Putonghua to be a mere “recent invention”. Rather than Putonghua itself, “a recent invention” is the idea that a nation should have a standardized language even understood by the commoners. Do we really want a modern Chinese nation-state instead of Zhonghua中華 or Tianxia天下 though? Again, this is a matter of politics, and the choice between the former and the latter is not the same as choosing between socialism and capitalism; it is about the modernity itself, not about what modernity should look like.
Another point to consider: what does it mean to be “Taiwanese” when it comes to languages? Is a Guanhua-speaking Weishengren外省人 a Taiwanese? Is a Hakka-speaking Benshengren本省人 more "Taiwanese” than a Weishengren? What about the indigenous peoples of the Island of Taiwan? Are we talking about the language(s) of the Republic of China, or the Republic of Taiwan?
Fantastic interview! I didn’t read much poetry (Western or Eastern) as a child, but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve grown to appreciate the economy of expression writing poetry requires, and the poems cited are such visually and emotionally layered examples (the 14 y/o girl poem was my favorite). Hyun Woo’s point about “a poet standing for what he or she writes with all his or her life” particularly resonates as I reflect on how this applies to my own writing and art in general.
Really enjoyed this primer of Tang poems and can’t wait to learn more :)
I think I had the same revelation when reading/trying to write flash fiction, which like poetry, is also kind of an emotional and lyrical compression.
Yes, the eternal question of whether we can separate a person from their art…. I don’t really have a good answer for that tbh. But who knew that being poet could be one of the most honest ways to live? Something that never crossed my mind before the interview.
Excellent interview. I like how Hyun Woo has formed his own judgments based on a deep reading of the poets and their lives rather than just accepting the handed-down and often over-delimiting standardized categorization of a given poet's work ("Wang Wei is a Buddhist poet" etc.)
The various philosophical strains in Chinese culture had significant influence on all well-educated people, so the idea that any artist or poet could be neatly boxed into one category is itself somewhat artificial. This is clearer and clearer as one gets to the Song and Ming, where syncretist thinkers such as Wang Yangming 王阳明 and syncretist works such as "The Vegetable Root Discourses“ 菜根谭 became increasingly explicit in borrowing from and amalgamating the various philosophical schools. Even earlier than that, certainly in the Tang Poets but even in Han era philosophy, multiple influences abounded. However, the tendency to try to categorize people in limiting and often misleading ways continues to this day: One translator of "Vegetable Root Discourses" subtitled his work "Reflections of a Zen Buddhist", whereas a more recent translator more broadly and inclusively titled the work "Master of the Three Ways" (i.e. Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist).
Thanks to you both for sharing!
Also, in my view, Red Pine is the Tree of Chinese PoetryTranslators.
Perhaps Hyun Woo Kim will have a similar moniker soon enough. (But first they might rethink the idea that Putonghua, a recent invention, is Standard Chinese. Taiwanese and Hong Kong folk would grumble about that! 🙏😅
This is a fascinating point! I would then argue for the 46-266 other dialect-speakers in China (such as Wu/Shanghainese, Hakka, those spoken by the ethnicity minorities) would then ask “what about us”? Just as how there are many languages in India but for many areas the lingua franca is Hindi, Mandarin is also something rising out of necessity for such a big country.
But “recent” is actually a fascinating point. One of my uni professors once said that because of the (relatively) unchanging nature of the dialects, it is more accurate to read Tang poetry in Cantonese than it is in Mandarin (i.e. more words rhyme). I don’t know where the validity of the claim comes from or what research backs it up and I don’t know enough to support or refute it, but it makes me wonder how the ancients really sounded when they spoke so many years ago.
Thanks for stopping by Ken!
I do have a Ho號, but I rarely use it unless I am giving away books after sealing them!
The idea of “Standard Chinese” can be sometimes controversial indeed, and it is not only a linguistic matter but also a political one. I would rather let Clare talk about how she feels about it as a Hong Konger. Honestly, I am not a big fan of the term “Putonghua普通話” either, which asserts that it has become the standard, common Chinese language. However, I believe it has already somewhat become so, thanks to both Kuomintang, which first introduced the idea of it, and the Chinese Communist Party. My preferred term is “Guanhua官話”, the official language or the language of the officials, although this term could be understood as the language spoken in the courts of Beijing during the Ming-Qing era, and I chose not to use it for that reason. As Putonghua, though standardized, comes from Guanhua of the preceding times, I wouldn’t necessarily consider Putonghua to be a mere “recent invention”. Rather than Putonghua itself, “a recent invention” is the idea that a nation should have a standardized language even understood by the commoners. Do we really want a modern Chinese nation-state instead of Zhonghua中華 or Tianxia天下 though? Again, this is a matter of politics, and the choice between the former and the latter is not the same as choosing between socialism and capitalism; it is about the modernity itself, not about what modernity should look like.
Another point to consider: what does it mean to be “Taiwanese” when it comes to languages? Is a Guanhua-speaking Weishengren外省人 a Taiwanese? Is a Hakka-speaking Benshengren本省人 more "Taiwanese” than a Weishengren? What about the indigenous peoples of the Island of Taiwan? Are we talking about the language(s) of the Republic of China, or the Republic of Taiwan?
Thanks again for the wonderful interview!
Thank YOU!
Fantastic interview! I didn’t read much poetry (Western or Eastern) as a child, but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve grown to appreciate the economy of expression writing poetry requires, and the poems cited are such visually and emotionally layered examples (the 14 y/o girl poem was my favorite). Hyun Woo’s point about “a poet standing for what he or she writes with all his or her life” particularly resonates as I reflect on how this applies to my own writing and art in general.
Really enjoyed this primer of Tang poems and can’t wait to learn more :)
I think I had the same revelation when reading/trying to write flash fiction, which like poetry, is also kind of an emotional and lyrical compression.
Yes, the eternal question of whether we can separate a person from their art…. I don’t really have a good answer for that tbh. But who knew that being poet could be one of the most honest ways to live? Something that never crossed my mind before the interview.
Now I really wish that you will write many happy poems haha
Excellent interview. I like how Hyun Woo has formed his own judgments based on a deep reading of the poets and their lives rather than just accepting the handed-down and often over-delimiting standardized categorization of a given poet's work ("Wang Wei is a Buddhist poet" etc.)
The various philosophical strains in Chinese culture had significant influence on all well-educated people, so the idea that any artist or poet could be neatly boxed into one category is itself somewhat artificial. This is clearer and clearer as one gets to the Song and Ming, where syncretist thinkers such as Wang Yangming 王阳明 and syncretist works such as "The Vegetable Root Discourses“ 菜根谭 became increasingly explicit in borrowing from and amalgamating the various philosophical schools. Even earlier than that, certainly in the Tang Poets but even in Han era philosophy, multiple influences abounded. However, the tendency to try to categorize people in limiting and often misleading ways continues to this day: One translator of "Vegetable Root Discourses" subtitled his work "Reflections of a Zen Buddhist", whereas a more recent translator more broadly and inclusively titled the work "Master of the Three Ways" (i.e. Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist).