another obvious phenomenon I'm witnessing is that you seem unable to
take criticism, whether "self important" or not. (if YOU didn't
understand what I meant, please don't assume I don't know what I'm
talking about). nice little defense of your unique vision there, but
I'm afraid it didn't win me over. your "no offense intended" is at
least as hollow as you seem to make me out to be; I said it sincerely
when I did.
this started out on the wrong foot; sorry for not being specific, &
being hostile, in the first place. I've just seen a lot of haiku like
the ones you posted being called haiku, & it tends to get to me after
a couple years of it. now, what follows is my _interpretation_ of the
haiku
'spirit', you can either agree or disagree with it (which is always
the case of course). I'm going to try to be helpful.
"Haiku is essentially about capturing a moment/experience in time, with a
shift after the second line"
I agree with this, although the shift can take place anywhere because
a haiku can be written on one, two, three, four lines -- however many
fits. this is because the syllable 'rule' is not a rule at all but a
mistranslation of the japanese guideline (which refers to 'onji',
which can only be thought of as 'syllables' in japanese).
but what I think it is easy to realise when reading, say, Issa's haiku
is that a 'moment/experience' within this artform means a tangible,
memorable instant experienced through the five senses. what's more,
the most important element in haiku is the 'aura' (it can be called
that, I think) that the NATURAL, surrounding world & its phenomena
contain.
"but you will
find, if you google the various component word-combinations of my haiku,
that they are completely unque"
I'll take your word on that, ok; but the point is, haiku are not meant
to be 'unique' in the same sense as freeverse poetry ought to be --
because haiku is not 'poetry' as understood in most traditions.
playing with language is commendable & interesting -- at best
insightful -- but in haiku it only loads the piece with weight. which
is what I meant by top-heavy: inescapably cumbersome. haiku create (or
recreate) instances that have been experienced in nature. the
impression that is left depends on all of the elements being
recognisable immediately; straight names, instead of metaphors: the
moon, a lily, a field, a mother, a toy, a sparrow, whatever. to refer
to the elements of a haiku in metaphor is to confuse what the haiku
should be doing, i.e. relaying a tangible experience. if you were to
look at that haiku I posted, you might find (or not) that it is only
'hackneyed' in that it uses familiar images -- which itself does not
constitute a piece being hackneyed. the haiku involves a sense of
motion, because the moon (normally still) 'moves' in the tree. not a
brilliant twist or a stroke of genius, but what needs to be understood
is that haiku are SMALL. they don't need, & can't successfully convey,
something as grandiose as a revolutionary concept.
your haiku do not occur in nature, & do not relay an experience but an
idea, which makes them abstract & symbolistic -- INDIRECT. if you want
to write aphorisms, those two pieces would be better suited as such.
what makes the pieces feel 'tacky' to me is that they are so clearly
over-abstract; "goddess of your mind's mirror"? haiku shouldn't need
to be unraveled, just experienced. and if you want an example of
something hackneyed, how about "true poem"? truth & poetry are a
pretty big cliché-combination if you ask me.
anyway, I really do apologise for having been curt; there's little
excuse for it. I'd appreciate it if you did decide to read what I've
just written above as genuine opinion, not 'help' or 'education' or
whatnot, just honesty. apologies once more Desmond.
K S
On 25/08/06, Desmond Swords <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yo Kasper, I see, like Beyonce, Lassie, Oprah and Judge Judy, you too hav
> e
> the forename only thing going on. :)
> If you want my opinion, I am baffled by your "top heavy" verdict and
> have no
> idea what ths incoherent statement refers to. Please expand and tell me w
> hat
> you mean in plain English, as this snippet of auto pilot blather struck m
> e
> as a catch all brain drip cliché of blandly forgettable criticism, offe
> ring
> me zero insight. A bit like critiquing a text as "a muscular piece of
> free-verse driven along a taut metrical line which robustly demonstrates
> I
> am completely disengaged and have no real poetical grasp or understanding
> ;
> but that of waffling nonsense....blah blah blah."
>
> Haiku is essentially about capturing a moment/experience in time, with a
> shift after the second line, which I feel this haiku demonstrates. Maybe
> you
> are confused because it is an innovative piece, dealing with the deeper
> reaches of an intellectual experience you are yet to encounter. You choos
> e
> to have a dig at me for not adhering to the insular know-all view of, wha
> t
> appears to me as, the delusional ego of someone with the poetic credentia
> ls
> of a washing machine. I have only seen two of your efforts here. The firs
> t
> one you posted I thought was very good and the second one absolutely dire
>
> and obviously a work of no real effort.
>
> "Tacky" carries the intrinsic connotation of "unoriginal"; but you will
> find, if you google the various component word-combinations of my haiku,
> that they are completely unque. Nowehere in cyberspace do the words
>
> "goddess of your mind's mirror" whilst "mind's mirror reflecting"and "n
> o eye
> can dismiss or reject" appear in that combination, whilst "Written rules
> of
> life" – appears only in three or four other documents. So 85% or so of
> this
> piece is completely unique and original, unlike your highly unoriginal an
> d
> hackneyed latest offering about moons and trees. Have a google of them an
> d
> see the millions who've already written those lines.
>
> One thing which is definatley not original, is the depressingly self
> important register of the all round unhelpfulness you are attempting to
> dress up as friendly advice. No offence intended of course. :)
>
>
>
>
|
