The Haiku Foundation Forums

Lorin:
The clouds and moon halfway across the world from the narrator is how I read it, yes. I assume many read it that way (especially with breaks verboten) since no one else said otherwise.

I remember that story of your introduction to haiku : )

This is the renku verse closest to omniscient POV that I've come across thus far:

in his hymnbook
the choirboy scribbles
secret notes    

-Gerald England

But a nearby observer could possibly discern this without knowing what the secrets are.

Here's my own conclusion about omniscient POV in renga/renku, for what it's worth:

The desire for immediacy in haikai writing (present tense, 5 senses etc.) precludes the omniscient voice from being effective because it distances the reader—prevents us from experiencing a verse for ourselves as immediate observers (since we can't read minds, see the unseeable, know the unknowable).

So even if I do find published examples of omniscient narrative in renku I'm likely to object to them.

Why doesn't the fictional/fantastical in renku similarly distance the reader? I don't know but it doesn't (for me anyway). The imagination easily bridges that gap. 

Thanks Lorin. A first-person reading of that verse just didn't occur to me.

Missed it again.

(How about paypal transfers?)

I have split thoughts (as usual) about the topic of haiku criticism. I often want more from it, and conversely find some of it a stretch (which comes off like overcompensation for a haiku inferiority complex). But reading the latest book reviews in the winter issues of Frogpond and Modern Haiku confirms another general impression. Though the haiku world sometimes feels small and self-contained we're fortunate to have a good many excellent poets who can wear a critics hat equally well, making conscientious assessments and providing insightful windows into haiku collections. There are exceptions on occasion—mismatched poets & reviewers, uncritical praise (love the Hemingway quote above), and reviews that miss completely. But even those are often corrected or balanced by other reviews.

For better or worse I'm more obsessed with excellence than most (even other artists and writers find my level of perfectionism excessive). So my ears perk up any time the word is mentioned.

I could loop out trying to list the marks of excellence—  surprise coupled with a sense inevitability, for instance, or an economy & elegance of material & form, etc. (though such qualities are not unique to haiku). So I won't go there.

At the moment I'm thinking more about excellence as an ethic, and a passion (which I note in many of Peter's remarks). It's not uncommon for writers to spend a decade on a single novel. Walt Whitman spent the last 42 years of his life writing and revising his poems for Leaves of Grass. How many are willing to spend years, if need be, perfecting a haiku? Not that time is the only measure of passion for artmaking but it's one indication.

Haiku writers span the gamut from hobbyists (nothing wrong with that) to serious poets. For publishers I'm guessing it's often a trade-off between democratic inclusion (which we all appreciate about the haiku community after all) and the showcasing of excellence (poems and poets), so I sympathize with editors who have to navigate those kinds of ongoing choices.

Enjoying the discussion.

A short reply just to say:

-I enjoyed the Philip Guston clip and readily relate to what he had to say.

-Wiman's last poetry collection, Every Riven Thing, impressed me enough to add My Bright Abyss to my reading list.

-"I am interested in rare things" as well, yet I also resonate with this final remark by Billy Collins that I just read in Haiku in English: "I like to think of the haiku as a moment-smashing device out of which arise powerful moments of dazzling awareness. But I also like to think of it as something to do while walking the dog."

-Count me among the 2 or more people that, more often than not, agree with, or certainly appreciate, Peter's ruminations.

Though I find much to concur with in the posts above I'm still not clear on where the topic is coming from or going to, or what the focus is about. Clarity of image? That's certainly the goal, except when it isn't. Clarity of meaning? Same thing. Clarity of vision, intention, execution? A more affirmative yea to that, but in the end I guess I don't have definitive thoughts or feelings about the word. I'm much more keen on the idea of 'immediacy' when it comes to haiku.

First I heard of it. Thanks for the heads up.

It's rare that I don't like a poem by John S. but 'a man,' though thought provoking, feels like an intellectual exercise. 'Monday' also takes place largely in the mind with little engagement of the senses, yet it does engage me aurally and emotionally.

My vote goes to Peter's.

I'm glad Billie mentioned the 'commended' poems and gave the link for the pdf version since a lot of folks, even some of the commended poets themselves, missed those by only reading the contest results on the web page. Unfortunately her post was missed by most as well.

http://www.thehaikufoundation.org/docs/HaikuNow2011Results.pdf

Some interesting angles to consider 'high fizz' from, Peter. As for other examples I can think of poems, including some of my own, that tap more into gut feelings than the five senses. Or that describe things interior:

long night—
breathing until breathing
is just breathing
             
dawn
before there is any
tune in my head

(These two come to mind because I'm reading John Stevenson's Live Again).

But nothing occurs to me with the other similarities you described.

Quoteit is the "realist" movement that you prefer, the literary/artistic illusion that there is actually a direct correspondence between word and thing, a transparency. -Jack

I'm also fond of translucency. Opacity of language, not so much :) but there is plenty of room in haiku to accommodate all manner of purposes, forms and aesthetics imo.

PS- Not that Eve's piece is opaque.

Hi Jack,

I have little interest in rules either. It's just a personal preference to be able to enter into an experience. And language is wonderfully capable of achieving just that.

It's not an open and shut case for me either. I sometimes do self referential things and wink at the camera in my own work. But since the preference persists for me (and for most people judging from what's being written) I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

(Jack, I wrote this before reading your last post. I'll just add that I don't know why stating an aesthetic preference raises red flags about "rules")