Form and Subjectivity

Dhugal: I think we basically have the same ideas about many aspects of haiku. I understand that you like the idea of a seasonal reference but have problems with overclarifation. Myself, and my Sensei, also feel that if a kigo (read "seasonal reference") is included in the haiku it doesn't matter how the kigo is clarified or classified. The important thing is just that the haiku contains one, in whatever form.

 I think we also agree on the content kernel of a haiku. What constitutes and does not constitute a haiku in terms of content. (Well I think we do anyway, we have so far).

 Our differences lie in our perception of form's relevance to haiku-HAIKU. As I have stated before I believe that there exists such a thing as the Western School of haiku, just as there exists a YAMAGUCHI Seishi School and a KATOH Shuson School. There is of course a lot of variety within this School but I do not feel that there is yet enough of this variety.

One way to bring variety into Western haiku is for accomplished poets, who have already mastered the content part, to experiment with various fixed forms. I know this has already been done but to be serious, most of this experimentation was done while good content was still a long way off.

 I'm hoping for a revival by the Western Masters and therefore can't stand the all too common practice of pushing on beginners who have almost mastered the basics "cut your haiku down to the single essence that is the haiku moment". I don't believe there is any such thing as a single essence. As long as subjectivity exists, and thank goodness it does or every poet would be remaking exactly the same haiku in exactly the same words, there is no single essence. This, at present, is where the Western School differs from (many of) the Japanese Schools.

I'm not sure that philosophy within haiku (self-found and not borrowed) has found its way into the majority of Western haiku. In Japan the philosophy is mainly found in the Schools to which a poet belongs and this influences the individual poet's philosophy. I'm not yet aware of philosophical schools in Western haiku, at least not with more than two people as members. If these schools exist and are now fixed in the Western haiku world, I'd appreciate info on them. Next time I talk to KANEKO Tohta, UCHIDA Sono and other poets I'd like to share that kind of info on the Western haiku world with them.

 Poet B:>Perhaps there might be some value in English haiku finding *some* form and for English writers to really master it. However, just because the 5-7-5 form makes sense in Japanese does not mean it makes sense in English.

 Dhugal: Yes, I'll have to agree with that. It may make sense, it may not. If the Japanese haiku were to be used as a model for English HAIKU there will have to be a comprehensive study on the wide range of information content in Japanese haiku. This varies from the "organic form" approach through to the "stuff as much as you can into 17 syllables and see if you can get something you'd never get thinking organically". I'm not saying at-all that the organic form approach is a bad approach as I quite enjoy SANTOHKA's poetry, several Western poets and have experimented in the form myself, albeit briefly. However I am of the opinion that it is not the only approach and need not also be the "best approach".

 Poet B:>There are two main problems with haiku written in English. As you say Dhugal, there is way too much form without content. That's the first problem -- people need to be educated about content and spirit. But what if there's lots of content, but no form? That's the second problem -- what form should English haiku take? I do not ask this question because there isn't an answer yet. The question HAS been answered for many decades by the best English-language haiku writers. And their answer is to abandon the "traditional" form. Some poets are writing "free-form" haiku. But I feel that many are writing haiku to an "organic" form.

 Dhugal: In effect, haiku has been Westernized. This is probably what EKUNI refers to in his essay. I'll just add that I was fairly angry when I read his essay for the first time, taking his tone as condescending. However upon reflection over the months I've ended up with a similar outlook. I do not however see the two as "distant relatives" but rather as "close family members" (well for the true haiku core of short Western poetry anyway). Rather like a father and an eldest son. The eldest son has his ideals and these are, as is natural, not exactly the same as those of his father.

 Every (decent?) haiku poet in the West subscribes to the same School of form? The organic form? In your opinion, is this the only form that English language haiku can take? If someone were to find a form, whether in syllables, rhythm or rhyme that worked in English would it be able to catch on or would it be ridiculed by the established schools and not stand a chance? How about something like "must contain a natural reference (usually seasonal), be between x and y syllables in length and include some kind of rhythmical structure". (possibly a theme clause could be included or it may remain unwritten as it is in Japan - It's interesting to note that the accepted definition of Japanese haiku only includes information on form although the working definition often centres on theme; in your opinion is there a firmly established working definition in English haiku?) I do not feel that things such as
 
 

           o
   r            g
f                 frog

 Poet B:>Again, I repeat, what is the value simply in a set *number* of syllables? No doubt numerologists would disagree, but there is no inherent "luckiness" in the number seven. If you read books such as John Allen Paulos's "Innumeracy," you'll see what I mean. People need to have a better understanding of mathematics and numbers. This applies to haiku in that people need to learn there is no intrinsic value in having haiku in 17 or 15 or 55 syllables. The *number* has NO meaning.

 Dhugal: There's an awful difference in information content between 15 and 55 syllables. There is at least some meaning in a syllabic constraint. (rhythm might work just as well though). I tend towards thinking 14 or so syllables might work OK as it allows both reductionism and rhythm to coexist but never having composed haiku in the English language (only translated) I'm not prepared to stick by that estimate.

 My school of haiku is fairly lax on syllables (onji). It only rarely goes under 17 (15 being the lower limit) but often goes to 18 or 19, sometimes even to 22. Several other schools also do not mind extra syllables. As a whole this balances out the effect of the SANTOHKA organic form schools on the whole of Japanese haiku. As I've said before the "organic" approach is only one of many valid approaches to haiku. There are many other valid approaches. I find it strange that there is only one mainstream approach (by accomplished poets) in the West to making haiku. I would assume that a famous Western haiku poet tried it some years ago and everyone followed suit. All I'd like to point out is that by not placing limits on haiku you are in effect limiting haiku. Only a limited proportion of possible haiku themes is left open if an organic approach is taken.

Dhugal: Subjectivity is present at all levels in a haiku.

 Poet B:>This may be merely semantics, and a misunderstanding of where the subjectivity lies. If I say "tree," the "tree" is an objective thing. By choosing to say "tree" rather than "flower," I am being selective, and thus (to some degree) subjective. But, in terms of a poem, a "tree" is in fact objective. The subjectivity lies in what I choose to mention or describe, NOT in the things that I actually do describe. That's the difference. Of *course* subjectivity can't be avoided, as per this distinction, but it *should* be avoided in the words of the poem that result.

 Dhugal: What if a "tree" is called a "forest giant" or a "sapling"? There is always more than one label for an object. In the choice of this label we are exercising subjectivity. Where does subjectivity end? As long as a person is present, it doesn't. Haiku rely on this (mayhaps subtle) subjectivity to work.

 This subjectivity idea only surfaced in the relatively recent haiku revolution after the turn of the century. Since then it has become a major idea in the Japanese haiku world. KANEKO Tohta has taken this to the extreme.

 Subjectivity is purely a haiku philosophy that I proscribe to and is not a determinant of the wider haiku philosophy. As such it should be considered for worth and, if you do not believe in it, ignored. The form problem is however Japan wide. It isn't individual philosophy but rather that of the entire Japanese haiku world. In this sense I believe that it needs exposure to the Western masses, even if it is subsequently ignored. People should at least understand the importance of form (after they've mastered content) before they decide to do away with it.