THE definition of haiku

[GuiltyPleasure]

This tells me all I need to know about your reasons for being here.......</clip.>
best,
andy

You've been obnoxious and abrasive since you first appeared offering very little positive to this forum. I'm taking your advice to Tzara, I think it was, and using the ignore option in your case.

P.S. I prefer hampsters to you, that's for sure.

 

[Cub4ucme]

I'm taking your advice to Tzara, I think it was, and using the ignore option in your case.
.

I'm very happy to learn that.

best,
andy

 

[Cub4ucme]

Ah, but you are so entertaining.

Sorry about the Xanax comment. I'm now thinking Haldol, maybe. Or Chlorpromazine?

Best,

tz

P.S.: "If I feel like defending the art of poetry." is not a sentence.

Just tweakin' you dude! Don't you have any sense of humor?

Mr. Flexeril

Do you have anything to contribute here in regard to poetry or, do you plan on flapping your frail wings around playing Paulie Politics all night?

First you complain about me interupting a thread when my posts are on topic, now you feel the need to continue on your path of attempted intimidation.

Do you write poetry?
Do you know anything about poetry?
Can you contribute something here in regards to the topic?

Didn't think so.

You're just another wannabe social guru looking for a groovy place to hang out.

You're barking up the wrong tree and you are entirely out of line.

But, keep them coming, I really don't mind at all.

best,
andy

 

[Senna Jawa]

Poetry: Semantic art.

Whose invention is it? Yours?

It seems that

Science: Semantic Art​

is more like this. Not quite but much better than "Poetry:...".

Then

Computer Sciense (Informatique): Syntactic Art​

is close but not quite so again, perhaps close enough.

Regards,

Senna Jawa

 

[Senna Jawa]

In judging the quality of the haiku do you just consider the minimalism or do you then look to other qualities in the haiku? I guess what I am really asking, is once a haiku has achieved and effective minimalism, do you then look for some of the other qualities often mentioned as being needed in haiku?

For instance, is a minimal poem that also has the cut (Kireji) that many speak of when talking of haiku, considered higher quality than a minimal poem that does not? Or are there different qualities you look for in a minimal poem in determining quality?


DA : )

Hi Jim, now I understand your question.

In general, when a poem belongs to a genre, say sonnet, we get two parallel questions: how good is this piece as a poem? How good it is as a sonnet?

The correlation is strong but not complete, not 100%. Personally, I am more preoccupied with the first question, and in this sense I am perfectly tolerant. Even more so, because I truly care only about "how good it is as art?".

You specifically have mentioned kireji. This is extra interesting, it splits into more questions. The natural and common use of kireji associates with juxtaposition, which again is a topic on its own. But of course there are other usages of kireji too.

You have perhaps selected kireji just as one of the interesting (even critical) examples, to illustrate your question. But I am writing my response in a great hurry, watching the digital clocks on the kitchen and on the microwave with one my eye all the time. Possibly I come back to your question. One has to, since it is so wide in scope, and basic at the same time. It's a bit like asking about... everything

My goal was to have a precise, as objective as possible, USEFUL definition, which includes the classical haiku and not much else (that's up to interpretation).

All the time, within poetry and many other activities, I strive for useful, objective notions, so that one can use them to discriminate between haiku and non-haiku, or haiku and senryu (actually, now senryu becomes a subdomain of haiku; I defined the distinction between haiku and senryu years ago, and one poet kind of had it stolen from me, has reproduced it without giving me the credit), ... My first goal in poetry is always to help; but to help black in whitethe working poet, without leaving her/him with muddy, meaningless or fractional notions.

E.g. 3 lines is not impportant at all. Packing as much as possible leads AWAY from haiku. "short poem" does not buy enough. As Keiko Imaoka has observed, 17 English syllables is information wise almost or about like tanka (indeed, I have written tankas under 17 syllables). Many characteristics have a strong correlation with haiku but not more: e.g. about zooming on one place and moment. "Nature" connection has to be either reinterpreted today or in my opinion (Occam razor again) simply replaced with sensuality in the tolerant mode, or with sensing the outside world in a narrower mode. But that is a basic part of the definion of the whole poetry. Etc, etc. One should not confuse good general advice with definition. My! I have to run!

Regards,

Senna Jawa

PS. Earlier I was rushing too. More precisely, for the haiku guys, I meant:

poetry is not necessarily minimal haiku.
​

This is not a theoretical definition; it is a convenient shortcut for everybody, because now you may learn poetry from the vast literature about haiku, then use your knowledge; just don't worry about minimality, when your goal is a poem and not haiku. Once again, I am practically (pragmatically) useful to "working poets".

 

[Cub4ucme]

Hi Jim, now I understand your question.

In general, when a poem belongs to a genre, say sonnet, we get two parallel questions: how good is this piece as a poem? How good it is as a sonnet?

The correlation is strong but not complete, not 100%. Personally, I am more preoccupied with the first question, and in this sense I am perfectly tolerant. Even more so, because I truly care only about "how good it is as art?".

You specifically have mentioned kireji. This is extra interesting, it splits into more questions. The natural and common use of kireji associates with juxtaposition, which again is a topic on its own. But of course there are other usages of kireji too.

You have perhaps selected kireji just as one of the interesting (even critical) examples, to illustrate your question. But I am writing my response in a great hurry, watching the digital clocks on the kitchen and on the microwave with one my eye all the time. Possibly I come back to your question. One has to, since it is so wide in scope, and basic at the same time. It's a bit like asking about... everything

My goal was to have a precise, as objective as possible, USEFUL definition, which includes the classical haiku and not much else (that's up to interpretation).

All the time, within poetry and many other activities, I strive for useful, objective notions, so that one can use them to discriminate between haiku and non-haiku, or haiku and senryu (actually, now senryu becomes a subdomain of haiku; I defined the distinction between haiku and senryu years ago, and one poet kind of had it stolen from me, has reproduced it without giving me the credit), ... My first goal in poetry is always to help; but to help black in whitethe working poet, without leaving her/him with muddy, meaningless or fractional notions.

E.g. 3 lines is not impportant at all. Packing as much as possible leads AWAY from haiku. "short poem" does not buy enough. As Keiko Imaoka has observed, 17 English syllables is information wise almost or about like tanka (indeed, I have written tankas under 17 syllables). Many characteristics have a strong correlation with haiku but not more: e.g. about zooming on one place and moment. "Nature" connection has to be either reinterpreted today or in my opinion (Occam razor again) simply replaced with sensuality in the tolerant mode, or with sensing the outside world in a narrower mode. But that is a basic part of the definion of the whole poetry. Etc, etc. One should not confuse good general advice with definition. My! I have to run!

Regards,

Senna Jawa

PS. Earlier I was rushing too. More precisely, for the haiku guys, I meant:

poetry is not necessarily minimal haiku.
​

This is not a theoretical definition; it is a convenient shortcut for everybody, because now you may learn poetry from the vast literature about haiku, then use your knowledge; just don't worry about minimality, when your goal is a poem and not haiku. Once again, I am practically (pragmatically) useful to "working poets".

I can't say there is much here for me to debate.

It seems you have chosen a much more objective path than in your previous posts in the thread.

One point you made stands out to me:

The fact that syllables are not where it's at.


Anyway, it's been a journey down the page and it won't change my
mind about the validity of your two Haiku, but I will say I enjoyed
this post.

It was both interesting and objective enough to allow for
contemplation.

best,
andy

 

[Liar]

Liar: Poerty: Semantic art.

Senna Jawa: Whose invention is it? Yours?

Yep, and one I threw together on a whim, so don't take it as my final word on the matter. It may well be that I got the semantics of 'semantic' not quite right. Ah hem. I do however subscribe to the notion that "poetry" is textual artistry. Be it semantic, prosodic or syntagnic. Differing from "prose" which is narrative artstry.

I don't follow your "Science: semantic art" either, though. I can't exactly connect the concept of art with the concept of science in the first place. Might be that we're attributing different meaning to those two words too. Care to elaborate?

 

[Senna Jawa]

Liar: Poetry: Semantic art.

Senna Jawa: Whose invention is it? Yours?

Yep, and one I threw together on a whim, so don't take it as my final word on the matter. It may well be that I got the semantics of 'semantic' not quite right. Ah hem. I do however subscribe to the notion that "poetry" is textual artistry. Be it semantic, prosodic or syntagnic. Differing from "prose" which is narrative artstry.

I don't follow your "Science: semantic art" either, though. I can't exactly connect the concept of art with the concept of science in the first place. Might be that we're attributing different meaning to those two words too. Care to elaborate?

I was tired when I wrote mine. Of the two evils, I mean "definitions", yours is lesser . The meaning of symbols rather than of words and other linguistic constructions, is only the second meaning of word "semantics".

Each of our definition catches only one aspect of the respective subject, poetry/science, so they are not really fit to be true definitions. They are more like some kind of aphorisms.

Regards,

Senna Jawa

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

Do you then distinguish between two minimal poems as to the quality of the poem? If both poems have been reduced to an absolute minimum or they equally as good or are their other qualities that you would then consider in reading the haiku?

Again, I want to better understand your outlook here. I have not formulated my own definition of haiku, I have pretty much based most of mine off of Cor Van den Huevel's definition (for English Language haiku). With respect to the minimalism, his definition is similar to yours, but he does go beyond the minimalism in his.

I remember Jack Kerouac had a simple definition of haiku, I'll have to find that quote. If I remember correctly it is similar to yours.


DA : )
jim

I have no interest in Kerouac whatsoever. I've done my stint for him. As far as I'm concerned, Kerouac is what Madison Avenue wants a rebel to be. That isn't my kind of rebel.
- Kenneth Rexroth
Rexroth on Kerouac
in case anyone is interested, Mexico City Blues is last, Kerouac's contribution to poetry, and far too many's concept as to what a haiku is.

at least Jack was good to his mama

I have no interest in getting into this discussion, just an observation that beyond the ego clash, it was worth reading.

Oh, and for you Senna
Here is my 2%, (a link) you can do the other 98. And try to avoid name calling when someone says you don't know Tu Fu. As you admitted, you know translations. Or, according to your formula you know the 90% that you yourself put in.