Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
New to Haiku: Free Discussion Area / Re: And this is a haiku because . . . ?
« on: November 19, 2012, 12:56:52 PM »
I think Don hits the problem with Lamb’s poem right on the head when he says, “there is nothing left unsaid.” I agree that the poem is full of emotion, but I don’t think that emotion makes a poem a haiku. And that’s what the question was in this post: it is a haiku? Not, is it a short poem that I can find emotion in? But, is it a haiku?
To me, this feels like half a haiku. It is a statement. This poem is missing a second part that I as a reader can engage with… to find the meaning between the two parts, or more specifically, to find my meaning between the two parts. As it is, the poem paints an emotional scene, but all I am is an observer of the scene. The power of haiku is that it makes the reader a participant in the experience.
Lamb’s poem is much like the second half of Michael Welch’s that is quoted above:
“the pull of her hand as we near the pet shop.”
This is very similar to Lamb’s poem and I can argue we get an emotional response from it. But note the difference between that one line and what we get when we add “spring breeze” as a first line.
As far as “tundra” goes, I have always felt that the second part of that poem was the blank white space of the page.
My two cents
Paul
To me, this feels like half a haiku. It is a statement. This poem is missing a second part that I as a reader can engage with… to find the meaning between the two parts, or more specifically, to find my meaning between the two parts. As it is, the poem paints an emotional scene, but all I am is an observer of the scene. The power of haiku is that it makes the reader a participant in the experience.
Lamb’s poem is much like the second half of Michael Welch’s that is quoted above:
“the pull of her hand as we near the pet shop.”
This is very similar to Lamb’s poem and I can argue we get an emotional response from it. But note the difference between that one line and what we get when we add “spring breeze” as a first line.
As far as “tundra” goes, I have always felt that the second part of that poem was the blank white space of the page.
My two cents
Paul
2
In-Depth Haiku: Free Discussion Area / Re: How haiku structures experience
« on: April 16, 2012, 12:33:09 PM »
I think the dogma against “telling” is not actually so much against telling (since haiku tell us a lot), but against interpreting. For example, in one of your Basho examples:
foolishly, in the dark,
he grabs a thorn:
hunting fireflies
Basho doesn’t tell you what this means to him. Just that it happened. The literal is that in trying to grab a firefly he pricked his hand. Left unsaid is the parallel between the sharpness of a thorn and the sharpness of the insect’s light. There are other layers as well.
Even in this seemingly interpreted poem,
among blossoms:
grieving that I can't even open
my poem bag
I find other layers, specifically the parallel between the blossoms and a poem he might write. Literally he is saying he wishes he could get to his tools and write a poem. But I think he is also recognizing his inability in poetry to adequately convey the beauty of the blossoms.
This isn’t to say that Basho or other Japanese poets never wrote poems that told/interpreted everything, but I think poems that do all the work and leave the reader little or no room to engage on their own are less effective. Now whether this notion is a borrowed one or not I’ll leave to others.
foolishly, in the dark,
he grabs a thorn:
hunting fireflies
Basho doesn’t tell you what this means to him. Just that it happened. The literal is that in trying to grab a firefly he pricked his hand. Left unsaid is the parallel between the sharpness of a thorn and the sharpness of the insect’s light. There are other layers as well.
Even in this seemingly interpreted poem,
among blossoms:
grieving that I can't even open
my poem bag
I find other layers, specifically the parallel between the blossoms and a poem he might write. Literally he is saying he wishes he could get to his tools and write a poem. But I think he is also recognizing his inability in poetry to adequately convey the beauty of the blossoms.
This isn’t to say that Basho or other Japanese poets never wrote poems that told/interpreted everything, but I think poems that do all the work and leave the reader little or no room to engage on their own are less effective. Now whether this notion is a borrowed one or not I’ll leave to others.
3
In-Depth Haiku: Free Discussion Area / Re: Susumu Takiguchi discussing haiku
« on: December 13, 2011, 09:07:17 AM »
This is a good poem and, despite Susumu’s protestations to the contrary, is easily appreciated by this American reader—and I’d argue by American readers in general. I’m not sure where he is getting his notion of a draconian “American-led” movement. As someone both living and writing in America I’m not seeing it.
4
In-Depth Haiku: Free Discussion Area / Re: The torment (of) Furuike Ya! Haiga/Haibun
« on: August 18, 2011, 09:59:38 AM »
I have always felt that “old pond” also applied to the poetic community of the time, with its over-reliance on accepted norms, tradition, and dogma. An idea which fits nicely with Basho’s shift away from said tradition in his new use of frog, and works well with the stagnation that Scott sees. So in that case, I think the first line is needed.
Paul
Paul
5
In-Depth Haiku: Free Discussion Area / Re: haiku vs. haiku
« on: August 16, 2011, 02:00:23 PM »
blue apple
it gives birth
to a mirror
- Scott Metz
I am hesitant to step into these kinds of discussions since definitions of haiku and our reactions to them are personal, and often pointless, but here goes... My definition of haiku is undoubtedly different than others, as like definitions of religion/spirituality it probably should be. That said, I require from a haiku: participation on the part of the reader, and a transference of meaning from poet to reader. Add in the fact that this poem is essentially two parts (blue apple) and (it gives birth to a mirror) and I am satisfied. I wouldn’t call it a classical or traditional haiku, but I’d call it a haiku.
My first requirement seems easily satisfied; Metz doesn’t tell me what to make of the scene’s parts. I have to determine/feel that myself.
Requirement two. The most interesting feature to me is the switch of expectation. Normally we see images in a mirror, or in other words, the mirror captures or creates an image; in this case Metz has the object creating the mirror, or realizes that without the object the mirror is pointless. There is also a nice redundancy, where the object creates the mirror which creates the object which creates the mirror etc... It is also possible that “it” doesn’t even relate to the apple. Now, I don’t know what a blue apple is, but it seems to fit nicely in this perceptually shifted scene. Perhaps a sad apple, or one tinted with a blue urban light. Perhaps an offshoot of ‘blue moon’, that we only have this perception occasionally. That also works for me. In the end I am left with existential questions of myself and my place in this world. The same questions apply to me. Do I have value outside of myself, or do I need a mirror (society?) to make myself whole?
A nice haiku.
Paul Miller
it gives birth
to a mirror
- Scott Metz
I am hesitant to step into these kinds of discussions since definitions of haiku and our reactions to them are personal, and often pointless, but here goes... My definition of haiku is undoubtedly different than others, as like definitions of religion/spirituality it probably should be. That said, I require from a haiku: participation on the part of the reader, and a transference of meaning from poet to reader. Add in the fact that this poem is essentially two parts (blue apple) and (it gives birth to a mirror) and I am satisfied. I wouldn’t call it a classical or traditional haiku, but I’d call it a haiku.
My first requirement seems easily satisfied; Metz doesn’t tell me what to make of the scene’s parts. I have to determine/feel that myself.
Requirement two. The most interesting feature to me is the switch of expectation. Normally we see images in a mirror, or in other words, the mirror captures or creates an image; in this case Metz has the object creating the mirror, or realizes that without the object the mirror is pointless. There is also a nice redundancy, where the object creates the mirror which creates the object which creates the mirror etc... It is also possible that “it” doesn’t even relate to the apple. Now, I don’t know what a blue apple is, but it seems to fit nicely in this perceptually shifted scene. Perhaps a sad apple, or one tinted with a blue urban light. Perhaps an offshoot of ‘blue moon’, that we only have this perception occasionally. That also works for me. In the end I am left with existential questions of myself and my place in this world. The same questions apply to me. Do I have value outside of myself, or do I need a mirror (society?) to make myself whole?
A nice haiku.
Paul Miller
Pages: [1]