pink = zero

[Jack Galmitz]

Hello everyone.
I cannot locate the source from which I originally found Eve's haiku;  I have emailed her to get clarification as to whether I simply transposed it incorrectly with the capitalization of the word "Words," or whether I did, indeed, see such a version.
I saw the Modern Haiku version which uses lower case, but this is not the original cite of the poem.
We'll see when I get a response from Eve herself.
I have much to say about the subject itself, but will refrain as my only endeavor right now is to truly reproduce the haiku we publish following the author's intentions.

[Jack Galmitz]

Okay, folks, the mystery has been solved.
I received the citation I originally listed for Eve's haiku and the first word "words" should be in lower case.
I will not get into the subject of case in haiku because I frankly don't see it as a sine qua non of the form; I'll just say that for a group to write "free verse" haiku to make so much of case is somewhat paradoxical to me.
I remember getting into a lengthy discussion, somewhat heated, in the past about this and I don't want to re-explore it.  I would just add that for "modern" writers to write "free verse" haiku and continue to write in the "pastoral" mode of "seasonal references" is another paradox to me (see Richard Gilbert on the subject-he is an authority).
Personally, I would have capitalized "Words" if I were writing the poem, as my reading is far different from those offered.
More important to meaning to me than the case of the first word is the extra space Eve placed between the first word and the remainder of the poem; this has meaning.  Let's say hypothetically that "words" or "Words" are reifications that's why the word is floating, detached from the rest of the poem; and it is only when words retain some of their visceral physical nature and origin that they remain true: flesh, to the depths,close to the bone.

[Chris Patchel]

Call me old fashioned or out of touch but the characteristic now moment of awareness (Spiess), present moment magnified (Heron's Nest), moment keenly perceived (McClintock) still holds sway for me. As much as I love the second part of Eve's piece, and the resonance it achieves with the first, both parts persist as pure abstraction. I don't experience a moment so much as hear a statement.

Added: It's easy enough to find inconsistencies with this preference (have at it). Why for instance don't I have a similar feeling about 'sticks and stones'? I am able to experience that one and could give reasons why, though I realize they may not be convincing to everyone.

[Jack Galmitz]

Perhaps that's the intention of the poem; perhaps that's why "words" dangle, suspend, are not directly proximate to pink flesh and bones.
I have to say my friend it is not a matter of being out of touch; I would be the one who would be considered out of touch. But, I don't believe in the haiku moment and all the expressions in that vein.
You have words, which the moment you observe something and formulate it in words, the thingness retreats, you are in another world, the world of language not of "reality."  Experiment with it and see if you can feel the retreat of the "object" as you begin to think of "words" to express with.  I feel it immediately.
But, as I said earlier, there's no reason to quarrel or seek resolution or a "rule."  I think that only hinders uniqueness and creativity.

[Jack Galmitz]

You prefer one convention over another.  That's your perogative.  But, in reading Eve's poem you have not only experienced a moment and been in one, but you have experienced what the English language school calls a speech act: you have been engaged in an action.
Sticks and stones are as arbitrary signifiers, unmotivated, as any words; it is the "realist" movement that you prefer, the literary/artistic illusion that there is actually a direct correspondence between word and thing, a transparency.  Again, I have no qualms with that; I write like that myself sometimes. My only objection is that it be propounded as a rule, a sine qua non.  Funny thing is though, just when you've created a rule that everyone adheres to and has for 30 years, no one remembers that it was an agreed upon "reality," which only has conventional truth, and is quite distant from contemporary language theory.
So, let's be friends my friend. NO reason to insist on anything; let's be poets and enjoy the different approaches our contemporaries take.

[Chris Patchel]

Hi Jack,

I have little interest in rules either. It's just a personal preference to be able to enter into an experience. And language is wonderfully capable of achieving just that.

It's not an open and shut case for me either. I sometimes do self referential things and wink at the camera in my own work. But since the preference persists for me (and for most people judging from what's being written) I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

(Jack, I wrote this before reading your last post. I'll just add that I don't know why stating an aesthetic preference raises red flags about "rules")

[Chris Patchel]

it is the "realist" movement that you prefer, the literary/artistic illusion that there is actually a direct correspondence between word and thing, a transparency. -Jack

I'm also fond of translucency. Opacity of language, not so much :) but there is plenty of room in haiku to accommodate all manner of purposes, forms and aesthetics imo.

PS- Not that Eve's piece is opaque.

[Jack Galmitz]

Well, Chris you are open-minded.  There are many who are not, who have wrirtten in stone what haiku requires to be deserving of the name, that's why the idea of aesthetic preferences raises red flags about rules for me. 

[Jack Galmitz]

Just for instance, Chris.  In earlier posts some people were discussing capitalization of words in haiku as if was a practice that belonged to an earlier age, historically bound.  If you look at contemporary poetry, I don't think you would find this to be the case.  It's just something that was adopted many years ago by the haiku groups and became a near rule.
But, as I said earlier, really these same people write what are for the most part pastorals and yet they do not aver that pastoral poetry is outmoded and was a product of a time in the West when societies were essentially agrarian.

[Mark Harris]

and there are those who defy rules by borrowing from other conventions. Capitalizing the first letter of every line, for example. Beware the Hybrid...

thanks, Jack, for getting to the bottom of the Case of The First Letter, which was also a great Sherlock Holmes story, if I remember incorrectly.

The contrast with Luckring's usual practice of leading with the lower case, and our talk of Dickinson poems, made me more than usually focused on the word Words as it appeared in per diem. I hope you don't feel I was being critical of you in my previous post. That was not my intention.

you wrote:

Personally, I would have capitalized "Words" if I were writing the poem, as my reading is far different from those offered.
More important to meaning to me than the case of the first word is the extra space Eve placed between the first word and the remainder of the poem; this has meaning.  Let's say hypothetically that "words" or "Words" are reifications that's why the word is floating, detached from the rest of the poem; and it is only when words retain some of their visceral physical nature and origin that they remain true: flesh, to the depths,close to the bone.

yes, I think that's right.

[Jack Galmitz]

Well, Mark, I'm glad the question of capitlization was raised, because I see it as my responsibility to transcribe just what the author intended and I would not have otherwise noticed.  I already fixed it in the archives.
And, you are right that other forms of literature rely on conventions, too, just as realism did in its day.
Generally, I write with capitalized letters of words beginning each line.  It is a preference and I really can't see how it denigrates the poem.  I don't see that beginning haiku with lower case gives the reader a sense of a before anymore than a capitalized word (it seems to me the capitalized word emphasizes the  particular time sequence or sequences within the poem, whatever they may be, quite well).  I also don't feel that haiku is about a moment necessarily, present tense necessarily; I recently wrote a haiku that contained past, present, and future and it won the Kusamakura Grand Prize; it also happened to have been written, unintentionally, or unconsciously, in 5-7-5.
I did feel a bit umbrage at what was being discussed, but only because it reminded me of some unpleasant interactions in the past about case in haiku.

[Jack Galmitz]

Would you mind, Mark, explaining what you mean by Hybrid, because it seems to me that you are presuming haiku has an accepted form and a variation, such as capitalizations of first words of lines is mixing a practice from another form of poetry and is thus hybrid.

[Mark Harris]

I have to run out to a doctor's appointment, but I want to respond quickly now and maybe less so later. I was free associating, and thought of Hybrid Paradise. If you click of the web link next to my profile, you'll see my intro there goes into a little more detail. Haiku is a genre, and not imo defined by any form.

also, your practice of capitalizing the letter of first line is fine by me. I think we'd all do well to at least attempt to accept an artist on her own terms. Sometimes that's a case of take it or leave it, but rarely so for me. best,

m

[Jack Galmitz]

Okay, Mark, I now understand what you mean by hybrid and yes, given its ancestry it is hybrid by necessity.  I like, admire, your work very much.  In fact, I chose one of your haiku for Per Diem; perhaps, Jim Kacian hasn't notified you yet and requested your permission to publish it.
Best,
Jack

[Mark Harris]

although I know a few people must read my poems, verification always brings a thrill. I enjoy Per Diem, and would be grateful to see my poem there, thank you.