The Haiku Foundation Forums

For what it's worth, I just received the latest issue of The Aurorean, 22:1, spring/summer 2017, which has a short haiku section, as usual. On page 51, this issue also has a longer poem by Bill Brown titled "What Light There Is" (which is also the poem's first line). I'm sure the phrase has appeared in many other poems, too, if not haiku.

You are quite right, Meg, that I was reading into your post a possible decrying of the similarity, although I did say I hoped you were celebrating the perceived similarity rather than decrying it. But usually when people point out a "strong" similarity between haiku, they usually mean that it's excessive, so that's what some people might think you meant. Glad to know you meant to celebrate the two poems. I'm happy to celebrate them too, but not because of much similarity -- I see them as much more distinct. It's obviously subjective how "strongly" a similarity might be perceived. It's not strong to me, at least compared with hundreds of other examples I have in my Deja-ku Database.

Just now seeing this thread, and thought I'd comment:

1. LeRoy's poem should say "Death's" (with an apostrophe) of course.

2. I see Mary Hind's poem as an independent creation. They share the "demanding candy" lines, and they both appear at the end, but this seems a common enough term for many people to use. A quick search online led me to this poem by Al Lane at https://altheauthor.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/halloween-haiku/ (it also appears at http://www.haikuniverse.com/halloween-haiku-21st-of-25-by-alistair-lane/):

Dark Halloween night
Ghosts and goblins roam the earth
Demanding candy

I'm sure others could be found without too much trouble.

3. I note that this thread asks if the later poem is a deja-ku OR a rip-off. Well, rip-offs are PART of the spectrum of what I've called deja-ku, so I'm not sure that "or" is accurate. On the other hand, I appreciate the implication that deja-ku can be positive as well as being a negative thing like a rip-off.

4. Jennifer Sutherland says "Should I ever have the misfortune to commit deja-ku." This statement suggests a serious misunderstanding of deja-ku. Deja-ku is not a pejorative. In fact, most kinds of deja-ku are GOOD, such as sharing the same subject (such as season words), homage, allusion, parody, and more. The "bad" kinds of deja-ku are greatly in the minority, and include overt plagiarism, accidental plagiarism (cryptomnesia), and excess similarity (this last one is the thorniest, because it's a subjective thing to define what constitutes "excess" -- and I don't consider the "demanding candy" poems to have excess similarity at all). Haiku succeeds because we as readers often SHARE the same experience that the poem talks about. So, as an extension of that, it's no wonder than many haiku write about similar experiences, and even in similar ways. There's a limit, of course, but until that limit is reached, shared topics and similar expressions should be celebrated -- and that's what I would do with these "demanding candy" poems. By "committing deja-ku," I hope we can assume that Jennifer Sutherland meant just the "bad" kinds of deja-ku, but I hope anyone reading this will NOT treat "deja-ku" as a pejorative term.

5. A comment on this statement, also by Jennifer: "I think haiku writers need to be aware of searching for our own unique voice and with every haiku we submit for publication, ask ourselves the question, have I read this before?" I agree, yes, that we should think about whether our poems, when we submit them for publication, might be too similar to others or not. But I also wouldn't want anyone to be paralyzed by this concern. Which takes me to the start of what Jennifer says here, about "searching for our own unique voice." I don't recommend that at all, nor do I see it as a virtue. Voice is something that HAPPENS to you by being natural with your writing. If you express your own truth, in your own way, your voice will (much of the time) end up being unique. But TRYING to be unique is a sure-fire way of creating inauthenticity and fakeness, if you ask me. In response to the Modernist dictum to "make it new," Jane Hirshfield has countered by saying "Make it yours" -- to be yourself. That's what really matters. Sure, there's a point where what you wrote while being yourself may have already been said, and said similarly, by someone else, and if you don't catch such instances, editors can help, and readers too -- and I too welcome such feedback. But the time to think about this is NOT when one is writing. Anyway, yes, as Anna said, a certain amount of "haiku literacy" is helpful -- to know the literature as best as possible, at least its high points -- but no one person can ever keep up with it all, so we can only do our best.

6. Thanks, all, for the good words on my deja-ku essays on Graceguts.com.

Michael

I'm not sure why, Meg, that you see these poems as having a "strong similarity." I don't see that at all. I'd think of the similarity as slight, if at all. One has scorpions, the other a snake, both at a hot time, but that is all. It seems likely that one would encounter both creatures in a hot environment, and that heat could be described as sweltering and shimmering, so there's no surprise there. In my decades of accumulating examples of deja-ku (poems that bring to mind other poems), I would not consider these two as anywhere close to being examples. Still, I recognize that you noticed something similar between them, which I hope is something worth celebrating rather than decrying.

I'm coming to this conversation a little late, but here are my observations, as they occur to me in reading through all the commentary in order:

1. It's unfortunate that two haiku books would have the same title, but you can't copyright a title, so there's nothing legally wrong with this, even for two haiku books. Perhaps not good marketing, but nothing legally inappropriate with it. It's immaterial that one book is an ebook, the other printed.

2. Nor do I think there's anything morally wrong with the books having the same title, whether a later book's author is aware of the earlier book or not. But again, not good for marketing—for example, it would be stupid and impolite (but not morally or legally wrong) for someone other than William J. Higginson to publish a book titled The Haiku Handbook. I can imagine that some folks might consider this to be morally wrong, as an affront to the earlier author, but perhaps that's a personal opinion.

3. The phrase "what light there is" seems common enough to be in anyone's domain to use in a haiku, but of course the phrase may bring to mind earlier poems using that phrase if the reader happens to know them. This is a good kind of deja-ku (allusion, even if accidental), not a bad kind (this much of a use isn't plagiarism, since the phrase seems pretty common).

4. I believe there are actually three poems in Sylvia Forges-Ryan's book that use the "what light there is" phrase (not just two). I gave the book a mini-review in Frogpond 40:1 (winter 2017), which you can read at http://www.graceguts.com/reviews/what-light-there-is. If I had known Lorin's book, I would have mentioned the matching title, but I believe I would have given a neutral reaction to the similarity, except to note that the title was probably chosen without awareness of Lorin's earlier book.

5. Where things get more interesting is at the level of Sylvia's individual poems that use the same phrase. It could be a case of cryptomnesia, if Sylvia had read Lorin's poem but forgot the source. However, I believe the phrase is common enough that she could easily have written it independently. Or she might have deliberately used the phrase and hoped it might serve as an allusion—although not a very effective one because Lorin's earlier poem isn't really famous enough to warrant such an intention—even though widely published. If I had remembered Lorin's poem, I would have mentioned it as a case of deja-ku. But please note that deja-ku is not a pejorative—it's just one haiku that brings to mind another in any of various ways. I don't see plagiarism here. It would be interesting to note when Sylvia first wrote the three "what light there is" poems in her book. If any of them predated Lorin's publication, then this is clearly independent creation. If they came after, then a question can be raised about influence, if any. But I don't think we have any clear answer. The fact that she wrote three poems with the same phrase tells us, though, that the phrase clearly arrested her imagination, just as it did Lorin's if she too chose to title her book after it.

6. I would be careful in claiming that Lorin's poem is truly original—it's surprising what you can find in very old haiku journals, or other poetry publications too. At journaltimes.com, blogger Linda Flashinski has a column titled "In What Light There Is." At http://journaltimes.com/lifestyles/relationships-and-special-occasions/in-what-light-there-is-all-that-i-am/article_542bdbae-9492-11e1-961e-001a4bcf887a.html, a note about the author says that the column's title comes from a poem by John Ciardi: "And still, I look at this world as worlds will be seen, in what light there is." Since Ciardi died in 1986, that obviously predated Lorin's poem. What are we to make of that? What we should not do is presume any kind of plagiarism or even excess similarity. It's a common enough phrase and no doubt others have used it before and after Lorin and Sylvia, and probably before John Ciardi too. And as meghalls pointed out, in 1987 Eamon Grennan published a book with the same title (was this influenced by Ciardi?). On and on it goes.

7. It doesn't matter one whit how "important" or well-seasoned one poet or the other may be in relation to the other in cases of excess similarity. Being an old-hand at something gives no one a free ride on plagiarism or excess similarity. Nor does being an abject beginner, although in such a case the whole idea of deja-ku is probably new to the beginning poet, thus some education may be in order that wouldn't apply (one would presume) to the more experienced poet.

8. I'm not sure when Lorin's ebook was added to the Haiku Foundation's digital library (such dating would be a useful addition to the book's page at http://thehaikufoundation.org/omeka/items/show/1249), but its appearance there would suggest that Jim Kacian, publisher of Sylvia's book with Red Moon Press (and director of the Haiku Foundation), would have known of Lorin's earlier collection. However, my understanding is that Garry Eaton is in charge of digital library additions, working with webmaster Dave Russo, so it's possible that Jim wasn't aware of Lorin's ebook (or that it wasn't added to the Haiku Foundation website until after Sylvia's book was published). It would be easy enough to ask about the timing, but it could also be true that Jim chose to publish Sylvia's book with the same title simply because one can't copyright a title, and that he possibly felt that the manuscript was too heavily tied into the title to warrant changes (or, given the fact that Red Moon Press titles are usually author-funded, the author retained primary control over the title and its contents). Independent creation is possible, no matter how much one might not like it (and I know I wouldn't if it were my book in this horse race).

9. I recognize that there's an emotional issue here. Lorin clearly feels put out by Sylvia's poems, and the use of a key phrase in both books titles. I sympathize, and I would feel bothered by it too if I had written the earlier book. But I think these things can happen—without any ill intent. If this is independent creation, then I think we just have to chalk it up to similarity and move on. Sylvia seems to have been less active in haiku circles in the last decade, so it could easily be possible that she'd never seen Lorin's poem or book before writing her own "what light there is" poems.

10. Yes, this is all "world of dew" transience, but there are still feelings involved. One of the biggest things that has intrigued me with my extensive study of deja-ku (which includes plagiarism, cryptomnesia, excess similarity, sharing similar topics such as season words, allusion, parody, and homage) is the emotional response relating to this phenomenon. Given all the various types of deja-ku, and the fact that one can be the "offended" poet, the "offending" poet, or a third-party reader, the issues and feelings can get very complex. Again, I certainly sympathize with Lorin's emotional reaction, and her feelings of not being acknowledged, so I think she's right to bring up this issue. Ultimately, though, I have to conclude that there's nothing legally or morally wrong with Sylvia's book title, except to say that if she had known about Lorin's earlier book, she probably would have changed her title—even though she would not have had to do so.

Lorin, I'm sorry this happened to you.

In response to Diane Wakoski's comment, I don't see haiku in English (or any other language) as being a "ghost" of Japanese haiku. English-language haiku is just as much flesh and blood and every bit as alive as Japanese haiku. But even if that's not what she meant, it's more importantly every bit as capable as well, even while there are differences. The essences of haiku have been repeatedly shown to be translatable to any language, and while core techniques such as season words and a two-part juxtapositional structure will have nuanced differences from culture to culture, they are still just as possible in English as in Japanese.

Nor is haiku just an imagist poem. Gendai haiku has shown that haiku can be far more than just an imagist expression. I would argue that it was actually the West that influenced Japanese haiku into evolving what has become gendai haiku, but even before gendai haiku's return influence on the West, haiku was broader than just an imagist poem. Nevertheless, I agree that imagism (lowercase) lies at its core (and here I would note that it was haiku that influenced the West to help generate the Imagist movement in the first place).

In any event, Diane suggests that poems written in a letter-based alphabet like English "cannot fulfill the premise" of poems written in a language like Japanese that is based on pictographs. This opinion begs the question of which premise she has in mind, but I don't see any premise in haiku that cannot be fulfilled in English or another language just as readily as it is in Japanese. In my view, Japanese has a set of advantages and disadvantages just as much as English. Where one language has gains, the other has losses, and vice versa. Each language has its strengths. English, for example, has a vastly larger vocabulary, and can control nuances in tense and articles in ways that are not so clear in Japanese. My wife is Japanese and she says whenever she's angry or upset she prefers to use English because it's clearer and more direct. On the other hand, that does not mean that Japanese is the only language where one can hint at things or be intentionally indirect. Perpetrated ambiguity is still perfectly possible in English.

Regarding form, it's worth reading Keiko Imaoka's essay on "Forms in English Haiku" (see https://sites.google.com/site/graceguts/further-reading/forms-in-english-haiku for the definitive version), which addresses differences in syntax and word order, and ultimately supports the effective creation of haiku in English without needing to follow a form of 5-7-5 syllables (an urban myth for haiku in English, as has been said often). Other strategies matter far more than form, and I believe those characterisitcs have shown themselves to have little or nothing to do with whether a language is letter-based or pictograph-based.

Grace, for more detailed information about NaHaiWriMo, please also visit http://sites.google.com/site/nahaiwrimo/home.

Michael

I think the smallest HNA (in 1991) had about 85 people. Most have been around 100 people. In Boston (2001) there were almost 150, but that included many musicians and other artists who performed but didn't really participate in most of the conference. The largest was in Ottawa in 2009, which had about 130 people. We're hoping for at least 100, and can accommodate quite a bit more than that if necessary. Hope it's necessary!

Michael

Thanks, Don. We'll be posting reservation information as soon as we can. We have plenty of rooms set aside for us at these two conference hotels.

Michael

I've just posted photos of the HNA hotels at http://picasaweb.google.com/MichaeDylanWelch/MarQueenHotelForHaikuNorthAmerica37August2011Seattle# and http://picasaweb.google.com/MichaeDylanWelch/TheInnAtQueenAnneForHaikuNorthAmerica37August2011Seattle#. Take a look! We'll post booking instructions and the HNA discount code on the HNA website soon. How do these hotels look to you?

The MarQueen is $145 a night (with breakfast), and the Inn at Queen Anne is $85 a night (and is across the street from our meeting facility at Seattle Center). We have plenty of rooms booked for us at both hotels, so there's no hurry to book just yet, but we'll announce when you can do that soon. Are you coming?

Michael

Thanks for posting this, Merrill. We hope to have updated information posted very soon. Stay tuned!

Michael

The HNA conference began in 1991, and was first held in the San Francisco area. At that time, practically all of the HSA's quarterly meetings had been held only in New York City (since 1968), and there had never been a national conference for haiku poets writing in English. One of the great pleasures of this conference, in addition to the stimulation of all the presentations and readings, is meeting so many different haiku poets in person. You may known a person by his or her poems, but it's always an extra pleasure to meet face to face. I remember first meeting Virginia Brady Young in 1995. She told me she was surprised to discover that I was so much younger than she expected. She thought I would have been at least sixty, but I was in my early 30s. For those of you who have attended HNA, what have been some of the best rewards for you, including people you've met (tell us some stories!) and presentations or events you attended?