Hi Lorraine,
You make an excellent point here regarding the way honkadori was practised in 12the century Japan. The key point you've highlighted is the use of kigo - The poets had a compendium of kigo as a valuable resource.
The situation in the EHL is more complex as regional/continental kigos hugely vary. A wonderful thing too as it allows for local, regional, specific references to be used in poems and I have personally learned so much from reading poems from around the globe. 😊
it seems to me that the honkadori was an oral competition. the participants were expected to allude. part of the tradition of the haikai poets was thorough knowledge of the older poetry. that knowledge, linked with the kigo and kire words and the culture itself, made for the linked aspect so evident in japanese haikai.
Absolutely, and the allusion to a known poet's work was in itself considered to be an art: witty, well-crafted:
and. . .something that was striven for by a poet was to have created a haikai that was deemed worthy of being alluded to by other poets. it was an honor.
For lesser mortals like myself having no Master/Masters to learn the craft from, the internet is a vast and open resource and whilst as you rightly note, not all poets' work are worthy of such literary allusions, it is nonetheless a phenomenon as more and more poets read and connect and write in an unspoken link with other poets.
which brings us to today. as you mention, the internet stands as a possible huge repository for haikai poets worldwide to find the published poems to allude to. what i would suggest here that now, as in old japan, not all poetry is worthy of allusion.
Emulation is almost a given in any literary form as the very nature of writing and publishing makes the interaction and responding to another poet a 'normal' aspect of this whole experience:
i pause here to think about how i allude to another poet whose poem i particularly admire. somehow, i think this is part of what Alan Summers is trying to point out in his Mahmight Journal:::that each of us, as poets, gravitate to something about someone’s poem that we want to emulate in our own work. i know in my own submission to him, the way i described my poem being offered for consideration was similar to the reason i liked the poem i shared as my favorite. and. . .if you read the journal entries, we are all different. and no one is copying words.
Definitions of what haikai poetry forms are in the ELH have evolved to accommodate ELH poets'experiences of writing in a form that is "borrowed" from Japan (and China) and you're right that Welch notes how "styles" of writing catch on and are emulated.
it’s not just about a particular word or group of words (fragment and phrase) that are borrowed. you’ve seen it: a particular way of repeating within a haikai is published and everybody’s doing it. i saw examples of that in welch’s article. the short-long-short that has become typical of english language haiku has created another style for poets to jump on. and how short or long are those lines in relationship to each other within one verse? and the journal whose submission guidelines stated no 5-7-5 ? really?
Something in another poet's work that resonates and strikes a chord can be wonderfully energizing and inspiring both both the writer and the reader.
i like the look of someone’s poem on the page. words that open up rather than close down my imagination. that is what i emulate. that make me wonder “what’s that all about?” that’s where i feel the allusion should be.
This is the crux of the point, I am trying to make : acknowledging another poet's influence or inspiration
does not diminish our own work and actually could open up dialogue and a sharing. Yet, we don't it and engage in spats about plagiarism whereas we could have a honkadori-kind of exchange and acknowledgement and expansion of our writing experiences.
i have found myself accidentally posting a verse for critique here that i find almost the exact thing in a chapbook i later picked up randomly. immediately went to my post and gave the similar verse its due.
a newbie here posted a verse for critique. i’d been reading Cor’s chapbooks and noted a great similarity between her verse and the one of Cor’s i cited in her thread. she didn’t even know who he was. and i got jumped with the question of whether i was accusing her of plagiarism. all i said was, this reminds me of.
and how many times when they critique do the mentors post their own published work as an example of how else that particular thought can be written about.
Sadly we seem reluctant to address this issue openly and without rancour:
i wonder how these instances of deja-ku are discovered. i know you can do a search for similar poems, similar key words, phrases. i guess i’m just not published enough yet to devote my time to checking.
There was no conflict between the poets about this and my point is that the original poet does not need to be offended and the second poet defensive as writing is inherently interactive.
i ask again:::how was this found and do you know how sonam takes it? offense can be taken by the poet of origin and defense by the offending poet. without asking the two poets whose work is being scrutinized as to intent, it’s difficult to make any kind of a case.
I believe that one does need to be precious about one's work but an openness on the part of poets who of "found" writing poets would be so much enriching.
and again, i ask what about the use of found poetry?
Lorraine, you have been amazing in your engagement with this and I thank you 🙏🏽
light pilgrim
