Haiku Lovers

[vrosej10]

I like it! It's still better when you reverse the order of lines.

("the" didn't belong).

Damn it. I am so tired I missed that! I really liked this one and yes it is better reversed. This was completely spontaneous. Sometimes you get flaws with that kind of composition.

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

This came to me in a dream

Rocky cliffs abound
In a babe’s wintry travels--
Childhood’s end is near.


Part of the last line credited to Isaac Sir Arthur C. Clarke and his novel Childhood's end. A Science Fiction classic that's worth a read. WIKI below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood's_End

 

[Luke's Angel]

and...?

It lost it's meaning when I tried to stuff the action into the 5, 7, 5 structure.

 

[Luke's Angel]

It lost it's meaning when I tried to stuff the action into the 5, 7, 5 structure.

How about this;

Wind blows over the hill,
Carrying snow from the last fall,
forming ripples on the ground.

 

[Luke's Angel]

delete
---

Farewell, literotica.

Stay safe and be well in your travels.

 

[Senna Jawa]

On the original version:

It lost it's meaning when I tried to stuff the action into the 5, 7, 5 structure.

You almost succeeded, you got all the way to 6-8-6.

How about this;

Wind blows over the hill,
Carrying snow from the last fall,
forming ripples on the ground.
​

This time it's 6-7-7. I am just musing. The number of syllabes is the least important feature of haiku. However, try to stay under 17. Straining toward minimum usually helps you to get a better poem.

This time you have a poem. Earlier you had just a phrase. It's good to have a poem. Poems are neither better nor worse than haiku (haiku are minimal poems). This one feels on the edge of the haiku territory. It does not feel like a classical haiku because there is some knowledge stored in it (which is not so good for poetry too) rather than sensual experience only. It is a good poem though, and that's the most important.

You may have a compact version of your piece too:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground
​

(Now it feels more like a haiku). Why is this thread here, and not in the main space?

 

[Senna Jawa]

two versions or two poems?

Recently I am thinking about the difference between the text reduction and poetic reduction of a piece. I discussed it on some material (including some Basho haiku, also my own). Luke's Angel has unknowingly provided me with more of a raw material. Let me work on it.

I've posted a variation of Luke's Angel poem/haiku:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground


​

A further text reduction gives:

wind blows the last fall's snow
-- ripples on the ground


​

The following question is important to me, and I would like to hear your feelings about the issue: is the latter poem a just a reduced version of the earlier one (but basically we have the same poem), or do we have two different poems, where the latter one is a text reduction of the earlier one but nevertheless it is an independent poem?

Of course the images are quite different. The feel is quite different. But are they different enough to talk about two independent poems? Is it a border case?

This kind of conceptual discussion is like looking--with an engineer eye--inside the
complex engine of poetry. Of course this discussion is highly relevant to my definition of haiku as a minimal poem.

BTW, L'sA, -if- I were to post this kind of analysis elsewhere on Internet, including the above two variations--how do I credit you for your original version? (I could write "someone", but it's not an attractive option).

 

[Luke's Angel]

On the original version:



You almost succeeded, you got all the way to 6-8-6.



This time it's 6-7-7. I am just musing. The number of syllabes is the least important feature of haiku. However, try to stay under 17. Straining toward minimum usually helps you to get a better poem.

This time you have a poem. Earlier you had just a phrase. It's good to have a poem. Poems are neither better nor worse than haiku (haiku are minimal poems). This one feels on the edge of the haiku territory. It does not feel like a classical haiku because there is some knowledge stored in it (which is not so good for poetry too) rather than sensual experience only. It is a good poem though, and that's the most important.

You may have a compact version of your piece too:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground
​

(Now it feels more like a haiku). Why is this thread here, and not in the main space?

I wondered how long it would take someone to mention I went over on syllables. I decided not to try to hammer out the words that would fit the syllables and went with what was closest in form to what I was working with.

 

[jthserra]

Recently I am thinking about the difference between the text reduction and poetic reduction of a piece. I discussed it on some material (including some Basho haiku, also my own). Luke's Angel has unknowingly provided me with more of a raw material. Let me work on it.

I've posted a variation of Luke's Angel poem/haiku:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground


​

A further text reduction gives:

wind blows the last fall's snow --
ripples on the ground


​

The following question is important to me, and I would like to hear your feelings about the issue: is the latter poem a just a reduced version of the earlier one (but basically we have the same poem), or do we have two different poems, where the latter one is a text reduction of the earlier one but nevertheless it is an independent poem?

Of course the images are quite different. The feel is quite different. But are they different enough to talk about two independent poems? Is it a border case?

This kind of conceptual discussion is like looking--with an engineer eye--inside the
complex engine of poetry. Of course this discussion is highly relevant to my definition of haiku as a minimal poem.

BTW, L'sA, -if- I were to post this kind of analysis elsewhere on Internet, including the above two variations--how do I credit you for your original version? (I could write "someone", but it's not an attractive option).

I think the second selection is a different poem because you lose the hill in the image. I read the first and I see the hill with the snow rippling on one side, the in the second one I see a level plain with the rippled snow.

I wonder though, considering the reduction, if it could be cut more. It is the winds nature to, basically, blow, so could the word blows be removed as redundant. Additionally, I would think of the snow being on the ground so perhaps remove "on the ground" as redundant too, leaving:


..wind --
last fall's snow
.....in ripples

or perhaps just "ripples" for the last line.

This does not have the hill, but what to you think of that as a reduction of the second selection. You lose a bit of the flow of the language by pulling out the articles but it is further reduced. Or have we lost the original moment here?

What do you think?

jth

 

[Luke's Angel]

On the original version:



You almost succeeded, you got all the way to 6-8-6.



This time it's 6-7-7. I am just musing. The number of syllabes is the least important feature of haiku. However, try to stay under 17. Straining toward minimum usually helps you to get a better poem.

This time you have a poem. Earlier you had just a phrase. It's good to have a poem. Poems are neither better nor worse than haiku (haiku are minimal poems). This one feels on the edge of the haiku territory. It does not feel like a classical haiku because there is some knowledge stored in it (which is not so good for poetry too) rather than sensual experience only. It is a good poem though, and that's the most important.

You may have a compact version of your piece too:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground
​

(Now it feels more like a haiku). Why is this thread here, and not in the main space?

This thread appears to be posted in both places fora. Someone probably though it a good idea to have the Haiku thread in both places. I just happened to see it first in this fora.

 

[Luke's Angel]

Recently I am thinking about the difference between the text reduction and poetic reduction of a piece. I discussed it on some material (including some Basho haiku, also my own). Luke's Angel has unknowingly provided me with more of a raw material. Let me work on it.

I've posted a variation of Luke's Angel poem/haiku:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground


​

A further text reduction gives:

wind blows the last fall's snow --
ripples on the ground


​

The following question is important to me, and I would like to hear your feelings about the issue: is the latter poem a just a reduced version of the earlier one (but basically we have the same poem), or do we have two different poems, where the latter one is a text reduction of the earlier one but nevertheless it is an independent poem?

Of course the images are quite different. The feel is quite different. But are they different enough to talk about two independent poems? Is it a border case?

This kind of conceptual discussion is like looking--with an engineer eye--inside the
complex engine of poetry. Of course this discussion is highly relevant to my definition of haiku as a minimal poem.

BTW, L'sA, -if- I were to post this kind of analysis elsewhere on Internet, including the above two variations--how do I credit you for your original version? (I could write "someone", but it's not an attractive option).

Use my forum name for the attribution.

 

[Angeline]

Recently I am thinking about the difference between the text reduction and poetic reduction of a piece. I discussed it on some material (including some Basho haiku, also my own). Luke's Angel has unknowingly provided me with more of a raw material. Let me work on it.

I've posted a variation of Luke's Angel poem/haiku:

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground


​

A further text reduction gives:

wind blows the last fall's snow --
ripples on the ground


​

The following question is important to me, and I would like to hear your feelings about the issue: is the latter poem a just a reduced version of the earlier one (but basically we have the same poem), or do we have two different poems, where the latter one is a text reduction of the earlier one but nevertheless it is an independent poem?

Of course the images are quite different. The feel is quite different. But are they different enough to talk about two independent poems? Is it a border case?

This kind of conceptual discussion is like looking--with an engineer eye--inside the
complex engine of poetry. Of course this discussion is highly relevant to my definition of haiku as a minimal poem.

BTW, L'sA, -if- I were to post this kind of analysis elsewhere on Internet, including the above two variations--how do I credit you for your original version? (I could write "someone", but it's not an attractive option).

In my opinion they are two different poems because you've removed "over the hill" from the second. That changes the image the poem creates for me as a reader. In fact it does more than just change it because in the second the poem is much more open to interpretation. And to me that is usually a good thing.

 

[Luke's Angel]

I think the second selection is a different poem because you lose the hill in the image. I read the first and I see the hill with the snow rippling on one side, the in the second one I see a level plain with the rippled snow.

I wonder though, considering the reduction, if it could be cut more. It is the winds nature to, basically, blow, so could the word blows be removed as redundant. Additionally, I would think of the snow being on the ground so perhaps remove "on the ground" as redundant too, leaving:


..wind --
last fall's snow
.....in ripples

or perhaps just "ripples" for the last line.

This does not have the hill, but what to you think of that as a reduction of the second selection. You lose a bit of the flow of the language by pulling out the articles but it is further reduced. Or have we lost the original moment here?

What do you think?

jth

The reduction works however the scene I used had a hill in it so that is what I described. There are mountains too but I went with the immediate scene and didn't mention the mountains. I was relaying the scene in as few words as I could put on the page. The original moment would have been lost as I was looking at blowing snow over a hill in the afternoon sun. Very stark but with movement of the snow over a slight hill. The hill was not essential to the poem but I wanted to include something of the mountains the poem.

I understand your reasoning and I can see now how I can use fewer words and verbs to get the same poem. I was trying to include as much information as possible in as few words as necessary instead of trying to capture one moment and build a poem around it.

This was a first draft and I was willing to accept that my first attempt at a poem in years would be rough.

 

[Luke's Angel]

I think the second selection is a different poem because you lose the hill in the image. I read the first and I see the hill with the snow rippling on one side, the in the second one I see a level plain with the rippled snow.

I wonder though, considering the reduction, if it could be cut more. It is the winds nature to, basically, blow, so could the word blows be removed as redundant. Additionally, I would think of the snow being on the ground so perhaps remove "on the ground" as redundant too, leaving:


..wind --
last fall's snow
.....in ripples

or perhaps just "ripples" for the last line.

This does not have the hill, but what to you think of that as a reduction of the second selection. You lose a bit of the flow of the language by pulling out the articles but it is further reduced. Or have we lost the original moment here?

What do you think?

jth

Thank you for the lesson.

 

[Angeline]

The reduction works however the scene I used had a hill in it so that is what I described. There are mountains too but I went with the immediate scene and didn't mention the mountains. I was relaying the scene in as few words as I could put on the page. The original moment would have been lost as I was looking at blowing snow over a hill in the afternoon sun. Very stark but with movement of the snow over a slight hill. The hill was not essential to the poem but I wanted to include something of the mountains the poem.

I understand your reasoning and I can see now how I can use fewer words and verbs to get the same poem. I was trying to include as much information as possible in as few words as necessary instead of trying to capture one moment and build a poem around it.

This was a first draft and I was willing to accept that my first attempt at a poem in years would be rough.

It wasn't really rough to start. It was a few very solid images that work well for the reader. And it is certainly haiku-like even without the syllables being exact (I agree with SJ about that) because the images are from the natural world. It's not easy to be concrete and metaphoric at the same time. And last but not least, two of the best haiku writers I've ever seen at lit, jthserra and senna jawa, both liked it enough to comment and encourage you.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

wow. Jthserra & Senna on a haiku thread. Maybe some actual haiku will be posted now. Seriously folks, you may have blown me off, but you'd be foolish not to learn from these masters of haiku.

 

[BellaBestia]

a discarded shirt
belonging to my lover
I press it to me

 

[Senna Jawa]

I think the second selection is a different poem because you lose the hill in the image. I read the first and I see the hill with the snow rippling on one side, the in the second one I see a level plain with the rippled snow.

I saw the snow blown from the other side of the hill, over the top of the hill, onto my side.

I wonder though, considering the reduction, if it could be cut more. [...] leaving:


..wind --
last fall's snow
.....in ripples

or perhaps just "ripples" for the last line.

[...] what do you think of that as a reduction of the second selection.

Very good! (I'd keep "in" or else the image is overly partitioned; too many pieces would be an effect diminishing distraction).

 

[Senna Jawa]

Use my forum name for the attribution.

Would "Luke's Angel from Literotica Poetry Feedback & Discussion Forum" be ok? (For the first time, eventually followed simply by Luke's Angel)?

Now the same q. applies to jthserra (I am pedantic about credits).

In the future, it may be another convenient option to answer this kind of a question privately, to sennajawa at gmail.

 

[vrosej10]

fragile dawn
this morning, normal smells
plus ripe fruitbat​

 

[butters]

Luke's original: oops! beg your pardon, Senna - this is yours, derived from Luke's. apologies

wind blows the last fall's snow
over the hill --
ripples on the ground

-----------------------------
you have me seeing the images clearly enough, but there's just something in the wording that makes me want to read 'fall's last snow' (if you can get snow in autumn), or 'last snow's fall'. It has something to do with the 'over the hill' image which works as a metaphor (for me) of age. The wind and the ripples, speak to me of life creating memories that remain even after we're gone.



Senna's 2nd suggested version:

wind blows the last fall's snow --
ripples on the ground
---------------------------
this works for me without the 'over the hill', but maybe because i've pre-read that line it still lingers in my head as part of the metaphor, though the concrete image of the hill is removed. still not happy with 'the last fall's snow'. Does it mean the snow from the previous autumn? the last lot of snow that fell? Are my problems a case of english v american english? Looking at this over, i suppose it has to be the last lot of snow that fell? why is my brain struggling with this? (having a blonde moment, maybe)

As to how it changes the poem - if i can imagine not reading the original, then yes, it is a different poem for me. I enjoy the flatness that events then change to create a shift, like a shift of perception worked by time, maybe. Sorry if this comes across as waffling, i've a cruddy head cold and think maybe i'm disconnected - mentally.


jthserra's thinking:

.wind --
last fall's snow
.....in ripples
-----------------------------------

bear with me, pls:
the use of punctuation here confuses me, unless it's merely to highlight the omitted words for us.

for me, this feels pared back one step too far: with Luke's original, the final image links the first two, creating a nice 'turn' at the same time. By the time we get to this version, however, i feel we've lost that somehow and the metaphor my brain constructed no longer works for me.


of the three, my personal favourite has to be Senna's 2nd piece.

 

[vrosej10]

dawn rain
up all night crying
I finally see the light​

 

[Mac2383]

little man in the boat
her delight and
my tongue's joy...

 

[Senna Jawa]

of the three, my personal favourite has to be Senna's 2nd piece.

Thank you chipbutty for your kind words and an interesting, thoughtful post. Myself, I like the jthserra's variation the best.

I would like to add that after all this evolution, the final version is removed far enough from the original, so that the original is not dominated by the minimal version. While the minimal version is more mature it does not replace the Luke's Angel original, which has its richer image to offer, especially with the "over the hill" scene & action.

 

[vrosej10]

midnight
toppling over
a stack of textbooks​