The Haiku Foundation Forums

Hi, al fogel.

Yes, that's the way to learn - like your style. Also your reference to left/right brain (not to mention the rest). For any readers of this thread who are maybe in the dark about the 'bilateral symmetry of the human brain' (cough), here's quite a good introductory link . . .

http://painting.about.com/od/rightleftbrain/a/Right_Brain.htm

Also, incidentally, do blow the dust off (or buy for a penny on Amazon): The Dragons of Eden, by Carl Sagan. A superb introduction to all and everything; much of it adaptable to haiku 'word exploding' (hairon: haiku theory, or essay).

Hi, Alan. You've made several points there that can be replied to. However, let's re-address this one about 'show not tell'. You say:


As show don't tell is not the main criteria of haiku...


First, allow me to rephrase the statement that I made, you know, about 'show not tell'. Let's clarify my unambiguous open question:


Without 'show not tell' as THE primary formal requirement of a haiku, its initial foundation, would we have a haiku?

-

Now, let's check this topics interesting subject . . .


blue apple
it gives birth
to a mirror

- Scott Metz


The first essential is met, Scott is evoking a virtual representation in our mind's eye. Furthermore, he has made his point transparently and succinctly. There is juxtapositioning - sparking meaning across the gap. Yes, his use of caesura give us visualisation space in which each segment of the unrhyming tercet is allowed to 'breath' (vivacious life into the substance). The mysterious MA arena between stimulus and response is populated by an evoked or invoked vision. The locale of that numinous silent void of ubiquitous mystic endeavour. There is even a potential kigo (or, more typically, outside of Japan, a seasonal reference). So, all is well. Until we get to the stumbling block. OMG! What's this about a blue apple! Then, as we puzzle this riddle, a blue Apple product pops into our understanding via some capricious lateral thinking thing. Sorted. But. Hang on a minute. Is it? Where's the capital 'A' for a proper noun? Drat. Scott must be meaning something else. Well, in that case this apple must be a Photoshop job, or some other piece of 2D art. The only other explanation might be something triggered by Issa's 'laughing mushrooms', or whatever. If the latter then we are pushing into multidimensional haiku. (Which some may believe is the future of haiku. As mentioned elsewhere, Charles Tart's 'state specific; where all levels of possible consciousness, once charted, are to be put to use by science and science's mutable consort, Maya, in her twin roles of art and religion.)


This is what is presented in 'the blue apple' item, among other things. Is it a haiku? Is it not a haiku? Well, yes and no, depending on which lenses we can access with personal credibility. Should this controversial example be hidden from the general global public on the grounds that it will add even more confusion to the formal criteria of haiku? Who is to say? Certainly not I.

Hi, Alan. Yes, to simplify:

If 'show not tell is the only characteristic of a micropoem (which may also, at the same time, simulate the haiku line varieties; typically 3, sometimes two, occasionally 1) - then, is this enough to confuse that micropoem with a haiku? Simply calling any three-liner a haiku is already a major problem here in the Anglo-West. When the 'show not tell' is applied (not an easy thing for a novice), the confusion is compounded. Being 'creative', clearly, should not be an excuse for slack understanding and application of haiku's unique DNA. Haiku form and methodology is, surely, something, although flexible, quite specific - not just anything we declare it to be under some naïve banner of individualistic freedom.

-

Moving on to your second response, Alan:

Yes, 'show not tell'. Think about it, Alan. Without this primary instrument could we have a haiku (of any stripe)? Now, whether haiku are poems or magic spells (and the latter can be argued quite simply), haiku does need a formal structure to exist. Certainly the subject matter of haiku is elusive, but the formal requirements are not rocket science. We could argue for a 'state specific' definition of haiku. That is to say, we could allot all known levels of human consciousness their own haiku locale (any interested reader could reference Charles Tart). Why not? However, this still, clearly, requires an understanding of fundamental haiku form. I'm sure there's a place for everything and that everything has its place - it just needs sorted out. In the sorting out we all learn much. Perhaps we even evolve.


-
I wonder what others have to say about these particular viewpoints? There's probably enough here for several topics!

Browser error - will update with a reply...

If 'show not tell' is the primary 'poetic' engine utilised by haiku and if we remove it and apply non-haiku formal elements to that engine, what happens? Do we have a haiku - even if it looks the same? Some people get around this not-really-a-haiku problem by declaring a non-rhyming tercet to be; haiku inspired, a micropoem, a senryu.. Would it not be easier to give whatever is using the 'show not tell' instrument in three lines (with maybe some elements plucked from haiku, or not) its own product name? You know, rather than riding on the coattails of the major brand.