My thanks to you comes far too late after you wrote your comment, but many thanks for the time you took to explain some of the history and background of senryu and haiku. It seems that, in the end, it is up to the individual, based on their readings of the particular ku. I enjoy this questioning of boundaries (it seems very human, and free to me). And, as I mentioned in my intro to Viral 4.3, because of an expanding view on how people define “nature,” along with the globalization of haiku and senryu, the terms quite naturally expand, evolve, and blur. I see this as exciting. Others who are more traditional and enjoy the rules and firmly guarded boundaries will probably take great offense to it though. So be it. Thanks again, Keiji.

One last thing, while do some searching for another project, I came across this quote (from “Technique used in Modern Japanese Haiku: Vocabulary and Structure” by Ban’ya Natsuishi):

“Ichiro Fukumoto (1943 – ), who specializes in haiku and literature, explains the difference between senryu and haiku, both of which are usually written in five-seven-five syllables. He denies the common belief that senryu doesn’t use season words whereas haiku does, and that senryu sets the theme on human beings whereas haiku focuses on nature. According to Fukumoto, such a simplistic interpretation became invalid ever since muki-haiku, seasonless poems, appeared. Fukumoto’s assertion is that the real difference is that senryu doesn’t have kire, whereas haiku does.”

He wrote, “In the process part of the senryu genre has been overlapped with that of haiku, which has also come far-away from the traditional hokku or haikai.”

There it is — that modern haiku is far from traditional hokku — far from the hokku of Bashō, Onitsura, Buson, Taigi, Gyōdai, and all the other writers up to the time of the revisions of Shiki.

To me, as a teacher of contemporary hokku in languages other than Japanese, it is of fundamental importance to distinguish hokku from haiku, to avoid anachronistic use of “haiku” when referring to hokku, and to be historically correct in differentiating the two.

Once the confusion caused by indiscriminate and misleading use of vague and inaccurate terminology in the 20th century has been eliminated, it is then up to individuals to choose the verse they prefer to study and write, whether hokku, traditional haiku, or post-traditional haiku.

Definitions of senryu and haiku, and their distinction, are real conundrums for Japanese senryu and haiku writers too. As Mr. Metz quoted above, some say they are only distinguishable according to who wrote them: if the writer says he is a haiku writer, then his ku are haiku, and if he/she says he/she writes senryu, then their ku are senryu . This opinion is a bit extreme, but they have a point. Many ku today can be categorized either as haiku or senryu. As genres, though, most think there are differences in feelings (and maybe structures).

In my opinion, you have to refer to the history of both genres to get a little clearer perspective. Haiku and senyu were both born from renku (renga). As many of you already know, a haiku is originally called a hokku, the first ku of a renga. Basho and Issa wrote their famous ku as a hokku, and in the late 19th century modern master Shiki cut hokku from renga and started to call them haiku. Elements that are distinct in haiku are rooted in hokku.

Senryu, on the other hand, has its roots in hiraku, or ku that are not a hokku in a renga. The genre began as a practice for novice renku writers to learn how they put their ku to the previous ku in a renga. The method of practice became the genre called “maeku-dsuke,” independent from renga. KARAI Senryu was the most popular master in “maeku-dsuke,” and, in the late 19th century, the master’s name was picked as the name of the genre. Well, that’s a brief history of haiku and senryu before the late 19th century.

[ oh, it’s getting too long for a comment! ]

Haiku and senryu writers in the late 19th and early 20th century tried to revitalize their genres that were so formularized and dull. Shiki re-read classics and emphasized descriptive elements in haikai. He also cut haiku from the renku tradition, eliminating much of the communal elements in haikai. Senryu writers also re-read their classic “maeku-dzuke” and other neighboring genres and at the same time attempted to “modernize” the genre. Some tried to make them more “poetic,” and others wrote their ku as self-expressions.

Such new approaches to their genres gave birth to many ku that could not fit to the traditional views of them, that are still popular in today’s Japan (Most Japanese feel difficulties accepting Mr. Koike’s ku as senryu). Senryu is often thought of as a genre that has three elements: 1. ugachi (surprising but persuasive grasp of reality), 2. kokkei (comicality), and 3. karumi (lightness). However, among serious senryu writers, they are not necessary conditions. Actually, the three elements were theoretically abstracted from classic maeku-dzuke by scholars in the 20th century, and are pretty much modern constructions.

Recently, it is getting clearer that modern senryu has roots not only in maeku-dzuke but in a much broader genre of haikai. For example, many senryu writers today write 7-7, not only 5-7-5. The 7-7 form derives from Haikai Mutamagawa, a book that collected good hiraku in renku. 7-7 senryu (sometimes called juuyoji-shi) have very different feelings from 5-7-5 senryu. In addition, modern senryu, as a living literary tradition, has incorporated literary elements from overseas to have many types: biographical, surrealistic, satirical, socially critical, etc. In the process part of the senryu genre has been overlapped with that of haiku, which has also come far-away from the traditional hokku or haikai.

Back to definitions of senryu and haiku and their distinction, it is impossible to fixedly decide if ku like Koike’s belong to senryu or haiku when you discuss them separately. However, as genres the two have had accumulated strategies of writing, reading and sharing. The question is: When you write a ku, which tradition does your ku respond to? A literary genre are not a set of fixed rules but accumulations of text and acts of writing, reading and sharing. What is important is how much your new work enriches which genre. In other words, Koike’s works are senryu because they are more interestingly read as such than as haiku.

Koike is also a renku writer and very conscious of questioning the boundaries between the genres from a broader context than I do. Sometimes, haiku and senryu writers defend their genres by limiting possibilities of each other and themselves. Koike’s works are well beyond that, as you read in the three ku above.