Thank you for your comments. I enjoy strong opinions and con-tro-vers-y (as the Prince song goes), disagreements, and the knowledge and growth that can come out of them.

On the one hand, i find your quoting of Lee’s text to be valuable, interesting, and legitimate territory to bring up. The quotes you extracted do certainly seem to contradict his selection of Peter’s ku (“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.” – Whitman). I sincerely hope Lee will respond to the differences between his feelings and opinion in that specific quote (*at that time*) and his current thoughts. It seems kinda clear though that his views have in many ways expanded.

It seems, however, that you’d like Lee’s views on haiku to remain fixed and frozen, for him to not change his thoughts or ideas on haiku—especially since, perhaps, it seems your own views are strongly connected to and backed-up by what he once wrote, or that they are perfectly in line with what *you* want haiku to be and what *you* think haiku should be; and for him to select something that deviates from that is just not acceptable. This seems to say more about you and your views than it does about him.

I sincerely do not follow your rationale though that opening haiku up (as if it were ever closed) will make it less likely that haiku will be respected “outside the haijin community”—a rather romanticized notion of those who enjoy and compose haiku, sounding overly self-gratifying, as if those who write haiku are more special in some way than anyone else who tries to bare themselves through words. Are we haiku poets or are we poets/artists? At the end of the day, are these ultimately poems, or something else? Why, necessarily, would the general public be more accepting of or interested in something that is contained inside a tight lidded box, with narrow limitations, and thrown into the back of the freezer than something that can grow, broaden, and evolve? Is not haiku alive? A living and breathing form of art? I was stuck recently by Martin Lucas’ definition of haiku in an article in Modern Haiku (38.2, p 55) that: “Haiku is only defined by each haiku that is written, and, in a sense, each new haiku redefines haiku. . . . ” I find that enlightening. And I think artists and poets in general would find that quite welcoming and tasty. I certainly don’t speak for “the poetry establishment” though. But I am wondering what you know or see that I don’t. Could you explain this aspect of your comment?

I value anyone’s thoughts and opinions on how this blog can help broaden the audience of haiku and gain more recognition in different places and improve overall. What are some of your ideas, David, on how to improve this blog? Could you explicate and share some of your ideas?

As for the “over-praise” and “hyper-praise.” I think I see what you mean. I’ve asked poets to select and comment on a poem they greatly admire though. Passions come out. And why shouldn’t they? What do you suggest? Your comments are always welcome for any posting, especially the Virals, and it would be helpful to many readers, I’m sure, for them to know your reactions to both the poems and the commentaries and how they might better address style, form, technique and content—though I thought the contributors so far were doing a pretty good job at that. Perhaps they are not the style, form, techniques and content you approve of? I think it’s great though that you enjoy (approve of?) haiku that employ surrealism (as you say, “sensory images [while leaving open other interpretations]).”

Your analysis and interpretation of Bashō and his work mystifies me though, and seems to be only through the modern lenses of 20th & 21st century realism (a Western method far removed from 17th c Japan), extremely dogmatic, with little regard to his own uses of poetic techniques, wordplay, alliteration, inferences (through language), and references, or what Haruo Shirane calls “the vertical axis” of haiku (“leading back into the past, to history, to other poems” [Beyond the Haiku Moment, MH 31:1]—methods, perhaps, that don’t fit nicely with your own personal definition. Same goes for composing from the imaginary or subjective, or more language based methods (“is is is is is”). It’s interesting to recall that Shiki didn’t like Bashō’s work. Yet now many use Shiki’s ideas (which he never always applied to his own work) to praise and interpret Bashō’s work.

What does it matter what *he* thought of his own work, subjective or otherwise? My goodness, what if you were to find out tomorrow that the haiku of his you hold in the highest esteem and feel everyone should follow and promote were ones that he thought were drivel? I think it’s dangerous to make Bashō into a cultish figure (though he was made an official god by the Shinto religion) and simply go along with the idea that if Bashō liked it, well then, I must like it too, if he approves/i approve—that seems rather follow the leader-ish and antithetical to the idea that “haikai is for freedom,” to quote Bashō, or to, again quoting his own words (unless it is an interesting myth): “‘Never content yourself with the drivel of the ancients. Just as the four seasons change, all things become new. Everything is that way’ (translated by David Landis Barnhill). Or, better yet, this, also from the mouth of Bashō: “Haikai is nothing but lying proficiently” (translated by Shinjuku Rollingstone).

Last thing. I don’t understand the comparison of Bashō to Ruth. Haiku can only be a home run or a strike out? One or the other? Does this mean that if one follows all of the “haiku rules” you would like to see promoted that, therefore, one has a home run haiku on their hands, no questions asked? There might not be both good and poor elements in a haiku/poem, some to improve upon, or elements one might like and appreciate, while other elements might simply be thrown out? Personally, I would rather see a baseball player (if there aren’t any on steroids anymore) who can hit the ball where the defense isn’t, advancing runners and winning games, than occasionally hitting one out of the ballpark. And, as Allan mentioned, the ones he gave as examples are some of his most cherished and translated. Is it always only 0 or 10? Or, like in Spinal Tap, an 11?

Personally, i love and support all methodologies and techniques for haiku composition and welcome both the new, experimental and unchartered, as well as the objective and image-based (what has become the norm/traditional). Nothing is limited or capable of being exhausted: just endless possibilities. I love it all and see potential in all. I just happen to take issue with quality and repetitiveness/mimickry and tend to get more excited by new possibilities that stimulate my imagination and soul.

Please let us know how we can improve with specific suggestions and advice, David. And please do comment anywhere and whenever and also address some of the questions I had above. Your voice and point of view are important, as is everyones, and I look forward to seeing more of it on troutswirl.

swirling,
Scott