The Haiku Foundation Forums

Thank you for all the comments, and the link. All of the comments were extremely helpful and much appreciated. This clears up my confusion. I was under the mistaken impression that the "unconventional" syllable counts were a translation issue, but now understand that it is a matter of the poet's need and freedom to go beyond the rules. The rules must not get in the way of clarity.

So,  I suppose it is another question entirely whether, once the poet has completed his or her poem in a a chosen form, if the translator will feel bound to reproduce the poem's form exactly. I think I'm understanding that most translators may value most getting the meaning, the image correct, in brief form, and do not focus on duplicating the exact form.

Thanks again for all your help. I am enjoying this website. :)
Dana

Hello John, thank you for your response.  I am surprised that the 5-7-5  is not a credible rule. any years ago, in school, I was taught that 5-7-5 was the correct form, and I have seen this mentioned on various web pages. Here is one I have looked at:

http://www.haiku.insouthsea.co.uk/form.htm

The book I am reading is called "Basho and His Interpreters, and none of the poems in the collection seem to be 5-7-5.

Are you saying the 5-7-5 is an old wives tale? Was it ever a rule? In any language? I'm a little confused. Thanks again for your help!
Dana

Hello. I am new to haiku and new to this forum. I have been reading a book of Haiku by Basho, and have noticed that many do not seem to follow the 5-7-5 syllable pattern. Is this an old, antiquated rule that translators ignore? Did the original japanese haiku writers rigidly follow the 5-7-5- pattern? Is it just an english thing? Do some translators keep it mind? Why do so many published poems not adhere to this convention? Thanks!