The Haiku Foundation Forums

For me there are two fields of criticism, although they can of course overlap. Literary criticism that will discuss and explore the social and historical context of a work/author. And writerly, constructive criticism - the kind we hope to get from editors and workshops - that responds to the work on the page: its form, structure and language choices. The latter focuses on what the work/poem is doing (or hopes to do) and how it achieves that. In this kind of criticism the writer's experience/existence is irrelevant. The words on the page are the only thing to consider. Perceived intention and perceived achievement.

I know it's difficult, no matter how far along in our writing career, to completely separate ourselves from the work, to create the divide between writer and writing, but it's essential if we're to develop and grow in any genre.

And the only way to do that is to put ourselves in the critical arena, and learn how to receive and offer criticism from/to our peers and from journal editors (if they choose to give it) we submit work to. But that arena needs boundaries - we're not instinctively 'good' or 'well-behaved' critics - guidelines should be laid down by a moderator/facilitator and adhered to.

And it's also up to every one of us to be honest about ourselves and our writing before we enter that arena. Why are we there? Looking for praise, acceptance and approval? Wanting to develop as a writer? Wanting to be part of a constructive discussion that will help us and others?

Finally: learning to offer and receive constructive criticism in a writing workshop has been an invaluable tool for me in life generally.

Quote from: chibi575 on December 16, 2010, 10:35:08 PM
There is an excellent book by the late Paul O. Williams, "The Nick of Time: Essays on the Haiku Aesthetics" I would recommend. 

Hi chibi - yes, a brilliant book, really inspiring. It's part of my list of favourite haiku writing books. The two others I always return to are:

Haiku, A Poet's Guide - Lee Gurga (Modern Haiku Press, 2003)
Writing and Enjoying Haiku, A Hands-on Guide, Jane Reichold (Kodansha International, 2002)

Quote from: dirk diggler on December 07, 2010, 06:27:21 AM
I quite like haiku to contain a title. But i got mine rejected by a haiku magazine because they said "True haiku has no title" does it have to be so?

I don't like rules, so I wouldn't say that haiku shouldn't have titles. And maybe single word titles that read on into the body of the haiku could work quite well... hmmm, I might give that a go : ) However writing them and publishing them are two different things - at the mercy of editors etc. But I think most editors are open to new ideas if they can see a conscious reason for the writer's decision making.

For me, a title can have a weighty presence on the page, so I'd be inclined not to title, and risk overwhelming the haiku, and use that information/idea in the haiku itself, even if that means it would be a 4 line haiku. Also, perhaps playing around with the title and the text together you might discover another form that the material is asking for: tanka, short free verse poem etc

Thanks everyone for all the comments and additions too.

Yes, that quality of surprise, as Robert Frost said, No surprise for the writer, no surprise for the reader.

@ snowbird: I have written some extravagently cliched haiku since I started! When I look back at some I wince : ) But, that was, and still is, a learning process. Sometimes they can be hard to recognise, especially when I'm too close to what I'm saying, but usually time (putting the haiku away rather than sending it out immediately) tends to make me more objective. What about you?

Re images: Sometimes haiku do seem to just arrive - an image, and sometimes a statement, strikes me even though I'm not thinking haiku.

But... I have also deliberately sat down to write/practice writing haiku with an exercise and eventually 'made' a haiku from the process. So there was more of a search for images going on there. I see images as vehicles for ideas (on a simple level, a white dress suggests a different idea than a red dress), and I think they can be found if I really have something that's worth saying.

@ col: thanks for the link, col. I've bookmarked it to read later.

This follows on from my post on 'Is Haiku Poetry?' where I say that, for me, haiku can be poetry if it's consciously crafted.

So here are some of the things I think contemporary haiku poets can consciously consider when writing haiku, or rather when editing their haiku, as I believe that the work of creative mind (the first draft/free writing) and the work of critical mind (editing and revising) need to be kept separate.

the shape on the page
contemporary diction and syntax
concrete language
images chosen for illumination (idea) rather than decoration (prettiness)
line break
subtle use of metaphor
assonance
consonance
repetition
rhythm
rhyme - sound and eye-rhyme

and, before we send it out into the world:
Is it saying something that's worth saying?
Does it avoid cliche?

What does anyone else think? Agree, disagree, anything else to add?

I tend to start with the following basic description when asked to define poetry:

Words patterned on the page to produce an effect on the reader. Or at a reading, the pace, tone of voice of the poet, the value placed on certain words and sounds, that act as a signal that it is not a piece of prose or a speech

For me, the reference to reader or audience is essential because that introduces the idea of craft, conscious decision making, which, in turn, places the writing within the realm of literature as opposed to self expression or therapy. Not that I feel there's anything wrong with either of those - we all write just for ourselves at times. 

So I'd say that haiku can be poetry if it's consciously crafted. As far as elements of craft go, perhaps that's a good topic for another thread?