ku 'ku
Dennis M. Hammes
1301
don't fence me in
surface of a sphere
who let the dog out
..6/28/02
1302
snatch the pebble
now you teach
the pebble
..6/30/02
1303
loaf of bread
jug of wine
faceful of ants
..7/8/02
1304
life like dew
Grand Canyon
dew do
..7/19/02
1305
so hard to teach
with all this earth
in reach
..8/10/02
1306
cherry blossoms
ground into
your back
..9/4/02
1307
sunset wine
a meadowlark still
not tired of singing
..9/4/02
1308
branches on the tar
raccoon rummages trash cans
under the North Star
..9/5/02
1309
under this tree
even bean soup
smells of lilac
..9/6/02
1310
today we
did not share
empty cup
..9/6/02
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
Eliminate toxic emissions.
Bury a lawyer.
http://scrawlmark.net
The Unknown Poet
On 2002-09-07 scraw...@arvig.net (Dennis the Hamme) wrote:
>1301
>don't fence me in
>surface of a sphere
>who let the dog out
>
> <...mercy-snip...>
>
>1310
>today we
>did not share
>empty cup
Your haiku sucks bad;
unsalvageable in its
present form. Ah so.
Give it up, Ham-fist.
You've written nothing but crap
for twenty-five years.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Michael Cook
and if 5+7+5=17 what else don't I know?
Hokku
mdc
sheila miguez
Cook <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Basho wants to know where is the kigo,
> and if 5+7+5=17 what else don't I know?
How to count.
sh
Michael Cook
"sheila miguez" <albizi...@feafaroth.org> wrote in message
news:080920021141420932%albizi...@feafaroth.org...
i walked into that one smiling
mdc
Tom Bishop
"sheila miguez" <albizi...@feafaroth.org> wrote in message news:080920021141420932%albizi...@feafaroth.org...
There are 3 types
of people in the world:
1- those that can count
2- those that can't
Michael Cook
news:alg3d4$1q0f6o$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
3+1+2=6
you cant fool me Tom
mdc
Dennis M. Hammes
Even Basho' had to figure out that there /were/ /kigo/, what they
were, why they worked, and thus what could be used as /kigo/. And
/he/ wasn't always successful, either.
I'd sooner copy chuckles than copy somebody else's list of /kigo/,
especially from another country with monsoon seasons, when I have
continental temperate seasons -- not to mention different
Traditionally-Cute-Animals, different Flowers-For-Tits, different
Flowers-Merely-For-Looking-At, different crops, and different weeds.
While a few of these are "local," they still refer to an area
several times larger than Japan. You'll notice that an American
can't put "lark" in a 'ku; we don't /have any/. Both the meadowlark
and the N.A. "robin" are thrushes. Nor can /I/ use the ubiquitous
'ku cuckoo; they're indigenous to our /south/. And the whole world
of rice-planting, rice-singing, rice-pounding,
rice-gourding-hoarding (i.e., all four seasons), is out.
And Basho' (the Zen poets generally) made extensive use of a Fifth
/Kigo/, an every-day-is-the-same-day /kigo/.
"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
>
> 1301
> don't fence me in
> surface of a sphere
> who let the dog out
> ..6/28/02
roaming dog = summer /kigo/
>
> 1302
> snatch the pebble
> now you teach
> the pebble
> ..6/30/02
beach pebble = summer /kigo/
>
> 1303
> loaf of bread
> jug of wine
> faceful of ants
> ..7/8/02
picnic ants = summer /kigo/
>
> 1304
> life like dew
> Grand Canyon
> dew do
> ..7/19/02
dew = dawn /kigo/ or Fifth /Kigo/ (see below)
>
> 1305
> so hard to teach
> with all this earth
> in reach
> ..8/10/02
scoopable earth, plentitude = summer /kigo/
>
> 1306
> cherry blossoms
> ground into
> your back
> ..9/4/02
cherry blossoms = blatantly-spring /kigo/
>
> 1307
> sunset wine
> a meadowlark still
> not tired of singing
> ..9/4/02
meadowlark = late summer /kigo/
>
> 1308
> branches on the tar
> raccoon rummages trash cans
> under the North Star
> ..9/5/02
rummaging raccoon = fall /kigo/
>
> 1309
> under this tree
> even bean soup
> smells of lilac
> ..9/6/02
lilac = blatantly-spring /kigo/
>
> 1310
> today we
> did not share
> empty cup
> ..9/6/02
today = the Fifth /Kigo/, the blatantly-any-dam'-day-of-the-year
/kigo/
> --
Dennis M. Hammes
Japanese masters and I have belabored the bit about "17 is too dam'
many for English" until we're tired of it, but I haven't assembled
the "book" so it isn't posted, mainly because it will not deter
those who believe they can count their way to Rule.
12-14 is "about right." Beginners will use more (even pages
more).
It's variable because English /doesn't count syllables/. Period.
Their /lengths/ are too variable, from taking two beats to being
elided right out of the voice.
Because 5 and 7 are prime numbers, use of English "feet" is out.
I've been trying for a "standard English form" for 30 years, but
our word lengths are so variable I'm still looking. I've been
fiddling with 2-2-2, 2-3-2, and 3-3-3 /words/ recently. It yields
some very nice effects, /but they aren't the only available ones/.
This last batch contains one which, like most of my early ones, by
George, /has 17 syllables/!!
It clunks.
We inhaled all the Provencal forms (including the sonnet) in nothing
flat because not only were they constructed of /feet/, the feet were
constructed of /accents/. Ditto the /ghazal/ and /pantoum/ (which
have their own structural problems in any language).
And we, God help us, invented the limerick -- using accented feet.
Smelly ones.
Michael Cook
I thought I was on solid ground with my comments, my training in Hokku came
from a Japanese fellow a few years back, he was as correct as you are
correct, I am find myself in a snare that trap so many poets/writers, one
that just the other day I was denouncing.
Thanks for the reminder, and the info.
Michael
--
00
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:3D7A8B04...@arvig.net...
david rutkowski
> replying to Michael's "where are the /kigo/" post, downthread:
>
> Even Basho' had to figure out that there /were/ /kigo/, what they
> were, why they worked, and thus what could be used as /kigo/. And
> /he/ wasn't always successful, either.
When I try to translate classical Chinese poetry,
I find my translations flat compared to the original.
Isn't it a moot point that Asian and Western literary
traditions are so different, that writing "haiku" in
English is putting sliced apple inside the empty skin
of an orange. Three line poems work rather nicely, but
they will never be haiku.
sheila miguez
<t...@truly.nu> wrote:
There are 10 types of people in the world.
01- those who can count
10- those who cannot.
:)
sh
Dennis M. Hammes
the thread.
(Saved the reply, though, because it was so magnificent.)
__________
david rutkowski wrote:
>
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
> >
>
If you had said this of syllable count, I'd have agreed.
But I've written 1300 "three-liners," and 90-95% are haiku (the
rest are senryu, which happens to the other masters, too, and
chronically to their students). Most of mine are "like Basho''s"
for the simple reason that Zen and /aristokia/ are markedly similar
(identical up to a point). But my arts and music yield plenty in
the manner of Buson as well.
On translations, I find some of Henderson's to be /less/ flat than
the originals. And I've been able to better a couple of his, almost
any of Blyth's, and all (so far) of Yuasa's. (Since Henderson does
also, I mostly don't bother.)
Part of the trouble is that when Basho' "defined" haiku, he
defined them in a Zen universe that's simply not accessible to the
average /reader/ (even Japanese), let alone writer, so that Blyth
and Yuasa (e.g.) simply don't know what's going on in the original.
It's not that /English/ can't manage haiku, it's that the
/Christian/ writer's rejection of "this world" can't manage haiku,
since haiku (whether Zen or not) exist solely by "touching the
ground" before they do anything else. Blyth, e.g., writes from a
Point Of English Protestant Superiority that destroys any progress
he begins to make at even reading them, and he's apparently written
none to speak of (he does a little better at the /renga/).
Finally, there are many puns available in Japanese that /aren't/
available the English translations, but that's true of any language
-- and of English puns unrenderable in Japanese. But the puns that
work in haiku are not puns of pronunciation or definition, but of
syntax, fact, and action -- as in any language. And those that
"touch the ground" /do/ translate as a result.
david rutkowski
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
<clip>
> But the puns that
> work in haiku are not puns of pronunciation or definition, but of
> syntax, fact, and action -- as in any language. And those that
> "touch the ground" /do/ translate as a result.
>
I agree. I think Bly's translations of Neruda work,
because Bly used his own style, and chose poems with
concrete ("touch the ground") images. But one of my
favorite classical Chinese poems is untranslatable
(although I've tried many times). The charm of the
original just doesn't come across in English.
I really believe that haiku in English or French
or Swedish, is a redefinition of the form. If I
were to paint a water color of a Japanese landscape,
it might be passable, but would not contain the
subtleties of a Japanese artist's painting. Cultures
are different, and "going native" takes decades.
Timothy Russell
"david rutkowski" <david...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D7D0413...@yahoo.com...
into shape has failed. Basho did not define it in any sense of either word
"define" or "haiku." Technically, the "haikuness" of Basho's work was
conferred retroactively. It was not until Shiki came along very late in the
19th century, late enough to have written haiku about baseball, that anybody
thought to include other haikai writing with "hokku" under the single term
"haiku," mostly because he recognized the value of other verses in renku and
associated writing. The best (only) definition of haiku has always been
accomplished by example. For what it's worth, it was Shiki who
(re)discovered Buson.
Haiku is not defined so much as it is recognized, maybe by the haijin first,
and then by the reader.
The popularly cited distinction between haiku and senryu as the one
concerning natural activity and the other concerning human affairs is
ridiculous. Senryu started out as satirical haiku written by a bloke named
Senryu. These haiku were more often biting and/or hurtful than humorous.
To say they concerned human affairs or even human foibles is understatement
bordering on the criminal.
Rhyme goes with haiku like mustard goes with strawberries. For somebody
with so many "three-liners" that rhyme to claim that 90+% are haiku beyond
being evidence of supreme self-confidence bordering on hubris would be
earth-shifting if not actual -shattering news in the contemporary haiku
world.
Haiku and the translation of haiku have both got farther along the road than
Blyth and Henderson and Sato.
kindly,
t
david rutkowski
<clip>
>
> Haiku and the translation of haiku have both got farther along the road than
> Blyth and Henderson and Sato.
I feel left in the dust. I've just read haiku,
but very little literature about haiku. The
fact that the term, "haiku", started being used
in the 19th century doesn't change the tradition.
The definition, or course, is in the poems themselves.
Asian art, in general, has been very imitative.
You don't have to coin a term for "bamboo paintings"
to see that tens of generations of artists have
added their personalities to the simple painting
of that plant. Shrimp, birds, flowers, insects, and
many other subjects have been "developed" in the
same way.
There's a classic story about a rich man who wanted
a painting of horse, so he approached an artist and
requested the painting. Six months later, the painting
had not yet been delivered, so he went to the artist's
home, and inquired about it. The artist then, in two
minutes, did a magnificent painting of a horse. "If
you could do this so quickly, why did you wait six
months?" The artist opened his closet, and hundreds
of paintings of horses fell out.
I won't belabor the point. Haiku can be written in
any language, in any form. Just keep them in the
closet until you are ready to write haiku.
>
> kindly,
> t
Timothy Russell
> Timothy Russell wrote:
> <clip>
[and more clippage]
> I won't belabor the point. Haiku can be written in
> any language, in any form. Just keep them in the
> closet until you are ready to write haiku.
Yes, indeed, which would contradict your earlier opinion that haiku would be
impossible in English.
My point has been that haiku as a form is still being developed, largely in
English.
No?
ps (That egret flew me to Matsuyama, Japan for 10 days in 1999.)
> > kindly,
> > t
david rutkowski
Timothy Russell wrote:
> "david rutkowski" <david...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D7D4B1E...@yahoo.com...
>
>>Timothy Russell wrote:
>><clip>
>>
> [and more clippage]
>
>
>>I won't belabor the point. Haiku can be written in
>>any language, in any form. Just keep them in the
>>closet until you are ready to write haiku.
>>
>
> Yes, indeed, which would contradict your earlier opinion that haiku would be
> impossible in English.
I will always reserve the right to learn from people who
have different opinions. Rigidity is only useful in bed.
(hmmm ... sounds almost quotable) No ... one has to be
flexible in bed. OK. Forget the bed ...
>
> My point has been that haiku as a form is still being developed, largely in
> English.
>
> No?
Yes. English is now the global language, which
is the reason that I, a mere M.S. in Computer Science,
in a country where Ph.D.s abound, am teaching at
a university -- even in the graduate school. Wow.
>
> ps (That egret flew me to Matsuyama, Japan for 10 days in 1999.)
Ah. So desu. A nice image. "Houston. The Egret Has Landed."
>
>
>>>kindly,
>>>t
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> <clip>
>
> > But the puns that
> > work in haiku are not puns of pronunciation or definition, but of
> > syntax, fact, and action -- as in any language. And those that
> > "touch the ground" /do/ translate as a result.
> >
>
> I agree. I think Bly's translations of Neruda work,
> because Bly used his own style, and chose poems with
> concrete ("touch the ground") images. But one of my
> favorite classical Chinese poems is untranslatable
> (although I've tried many times). The charm of the
> original just doesn't come across in English.
I've found a couple such in the Japanese, though one is because of a
pun on the way the character is written.
>
> I really believe that haiku in English or French
> or Swedish, is a redefinition of the form.
Never said it wasn't; said I've been fighting that fact for 30
years. We don't count syllables; recent discussion of certain
sonnets demonstrates that most English users don't even /hear/ them.
Content is another matter. Most of my 'ku, esp. after the first
decade, are more "Japanese" than the modern Japanese -- who has
taken your "decades" to become Westernised, and asserts he is
writing "haiku" because he said "cherry blossom," excuse me,
"/sakura/."
But the same dichotomy shows in Japanese 'ku /before/
"Westernisation": those that understand the sword, those that
understand metaphysics (theirs, at least), those that understand
economics, etc., and those that don't.
Nor is this dichotomy "Japanese." It's Protestant, which you have
all over the world, and which is not a religion but a psychosis.
> If I
> were to paint a water color of a Japanese landscape,
> it might be passable, but would not contain the
> subtleties of a Japanese artist's painting. Cultures
> are different, and "going native" takes decades.
Learning any art takes decades. But we have a reasonable number of
commercial arts pros who do the Japanese thing quite well, even if
it is noticeably derivative from /our/ point of view. Or as copycat
as a Japanese student is of a Japanese master.
Dennis M. Hammes
Technically, the "haikuness" of Basho''s work was conferred, by
Basho', on his students and as a matter of routine. "That is not
haiku, that is haiku." And you can look that up. Exemplary, yes;
he didn't state definitions or equations (as I sometimes do).
And he was about 300 years away from being the first to chop the
/hokku/ off a /tanka/ or /renga/ as a standalone form, yes.
Indeed, he wasn't even the first to use it as a vehicle for
metaphysics, however it came to him essentially as a parlor game.
As sonnets very nearly came to me, save that the prior exceptions --
to him or me -- existed on no large scale.
> It was not until Shiki came along very late in the
> 19th century, late enough to have written haiku about baseball, that anybody
> thought to include other haikai writing with "hokku" under the single term
> "haiku," mostly because he recognized the value of other verses in renku and
> associated writing. The best (only) definition of haiku has always been
> accomplished by example. For what it's worth, it was Shiki who
> (re)discovered Buson.
Did Fenollosa have anything to do with that, or did Fenollosa merely
discover Shiki?
>
> Haiku is not defined so much as it is recognized, maybe by the haijin first,
> and then by the reader.
But that's true of /any/ poetic form. Or you can make a mudpie that
has three lines or fourteen; it's a free world.
>
> The popularly cited distinction between haiku and senryu as the one
> concerning natural activity and the other concerning human affairs is
> ridiculous.
But, Darlin', I /made no distinction/ other than to say that maybe
5% of my stuff turned out to be senryu. And yours, above, is /not/
the distinction I've heard anybody make save yourself. So, while
you may be stuck with it, I'm not.
> Senryu started out as satirical haiku written by a bloke named
> Senryu. These haiku
But that's the whole point. They weren't. Just another little boy
who says that any shit of his choosing is "poetry" so that he can
make further Authoritative Distinctions in the resulting mudpie...
> were more often biting and/or hurtful than humorous.
> To say they concerned human affairs or even human foibles is understatement
> bordering on the criminal.
But I mand /no mention of any kind/ of what senryu were. I didn't
feel any need to do so on this group. However, I will point out
that "human affairs/foibles" isn't even in the universe of discourse
that /does/ make the distinction.
>
> Rhyme goes with haiku like mustard goes with strawberries.
OOOOOOOOooooo, a /simile/. I am /crushed/, simply /crushed/...
Like a strawberry.
> For somebody
> with so many "three-liners" that rhyme to claim that 90+% are haiku beyond
> being evidence of supreme self-confidence bordering on hubris would be
> earth-shifting if not actual -shattering news in the contemporary haiku
> world.
Well, gee, Altar-Boy, you forgot the price of admission: show me
some haiku, or even lowku, or even ku'ku, or even a dozen sonnets
(seems to be a minimum number on this newsgroup), or shut your
incompetent, nonperforming, too-yellow-even-to-try-it, mouth on the
subject.
Oh, ooo, I Forgot. You've got Equal Rights to other people's
lives, fortunes, and honors by virtue of having been born, you Holy
Little Gift From God, you -- and of having overheard somebody
mention them.
Child, in case you didn't notice or /hadn't heard it from somebody
you were sucking on at the moment/, English rhymes, Japanese
doesn't. Japanese counts syllables, English doesn't. I write in
English, so I rhyme when I feel like it, which is usually "where
possible." And for a deliberately-stupid Protestant (/I'm/ sorry;
that was redundant) to assert that I haven't written haiku because I
don't write in Japanese is the assertion of the lowest order of
altar-boy who's just discovered a Holier Religion than the one he
peed on his Mommy's rug.
Silly Boy. There /is/ no Holier religion than the one you peed on
your Mommy's rug; it decrees that nobody has your /Permission/ to be
/your Unequal/. And you just can't get any more Powerful than that.
But to suck the pr.cks of Lots Of Contemporary Babies who can't
find a tenor or the ground with both hands and a flashlight, as even
a comparison, let alone a judgment, is the assertion of a
Commonwealth Protestant (oops, another redundancy) who first asserts
that his pr.cksucking among the student body constitutes "voting"
/and/ that the rest of the world is bound by his incompetence to say
what it is that he pretends to "count." And /then/ says that the
Pr.cks /he/ sucked add their zeros in a Mystical Manner to
constitute a Holy Sum that is Divinely Binding Over All.
Ooo. I Forgot. That's "Democracy," and /nobody/ can Say Anything
about Democracy.
Listen carefully, Protestant Socialist (redundant again,
dammit!). I do not need your pr.cksucking Permission to know what
haiku are, to write haiku, to write haiku in English, to write haiku
that rhyme /because/ they are in English, to say what works and what
doesn't in English, to plot /or piddle/ with forms in English, /or/
to say that I do this so often and so much that over 90% of mine
succeed at what they succeed at. Or that it was /usually/ what I
intended when I started the bit. I don't need your Permission to
revise my estimate of my success to 5% tomorrow, or to 50% the day
after.
And I don't need your Permission to say that you fail utterly of
the ability to read -- I already have it out of your own mouth, if
in nothing more than your misrepresenting those you cite as
Authorities Around Here. Oh, dammit, I Forgot, again; since I don't
have your Permission to know them myself, your citations are
Necessarily Correct.
But I /am/ a little tired of your assertions that your little
religion was written by Basho', Buson, or Shiki, or Henderson, or
Blyth, et al, or even me, since I've read a tad of them myself.
And, Baby Suck, though you are the Supreme Authority on the fact
that you alter the nature of the universe by Choosing Which Pr.ck To
Suck, my numbers are /my/ numbers and /remain/ my numbers. Yours
are /other people's/ numbers.
And that /really/ pisses you off. Because while you were Choosing
The Easiest Pr.ck To Suck, /I/ was beating the points off my
pencils. For 33 years thus far. And /I/ didn't have your
/Permission/.
And beating a point on my sword. For 48. Which, Oh Golly, Miss
Molly, I don't have your /Permission/ to know about, /either/.
Well, /mea materficamum culpa/.
>
> Haiku and the translation of haiku have both got farther along the road than
> Blyth and Henderson and Sato.
Some of /mine/ have, certainly. And some haven't. What about
yours?
>
> kindly,
> t
And now the Protestant Baby is "kind" because he overheard that
word, too. And /he/ used it /first/...
Think of it as natural selection in action.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "david rutkowski" <david...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D7D4B1E...@yahoo.com...
> > Timothy Russell wrote:
> > <clip>
> [and more clippage]
>
> > I won't belabor the point. Haiku can be written in
> > any language, in any form. Just keep them in the
> > closet until you are ready to write haiku.
>
> Yes, indeed, which would contradict your earlier opinion that haiku would be
> impossible in English.
IIRC, since he was arguing with me, was that he the /form/ is
impossible in English. Which is the master consensus on both sides
of the pond.
Form: lines, feet, syllables, word count, yatta.
Some Japanese content is not possible in English, but then some
English content is not possible in Japanese.
Re translation: 5-7-5 syllables of Japanese yields /fewer/
(usually) of English, but especially if the style and flavor of the
content is to be maintained. And 5-7-5 syllables of English almost
invariably yields around 18-24 syllables of Japanese. if English is
to adhere to the /intent or style of the content/, it can't use 17
syllables.
>
> My point has been that haiku as a form is still being developed, largely in
> English.
Unfortunately, it's not only somebody else's point, it wasn't
correct when /he/ said it. See, the trouble with saying "Well, He
Said____" is that you've /no idea/ what he said. Even if you file
off the serial numbers and the "Well, He Said." And you can look
that up.
As unfortunately, the Japanese seem lately only to be copying the
occasional Poetic word from previous haiku, something Shiki
complained roundly about a century ago. But the same complaint can
be made of the poetry of any language at almost any period in its
history. The /practice/ has a chronic appearance on this group in
real time, and in all forms.
(Of course, if you /get rid of the forms/, you can claim that any
mudpile is a Poem. E.g., we have lots of Highly-Poetic Babies, some
even claiming to be Full Professors, who piss on rhyme merely
because they're too dam' lazy to learn how and everybody else was
too yellow to pick up a pencil. And Of Course, their results are
Equal, so they never needed to in the first place.)
I have several field samples of haiku's "development in English,"
and several samples of other people's field samples. (Other
people's, yes. They only fill out the universe of the discourse a
bit.)
And I will flatly put that the only apparent "development" is
"largely" my own. In both form (which continues to fail to yield a
single standard) and content. And while my content and method
aren't all that far beyond Basho' or Buson, nor my form well beyond
Henderson, they're orders of magnitude beyond the common practice in
either country.
I would /love/ for you to demonstrate that the appearance is
false, but merely misquoting other people's noises will not. Esp.
when you appear unable to do more than pee on a page of haiku.
Shit, boy, my /cat/ can do that.
>
> No?
>
> ps (That egret flew me to Matsuyama, Japan for 10 days in 1999.)
Congratulations, Gandalf.
I've been flying to parts of Japan for about 99 years, now. Since
some here even know how I come to be 171 years old, I sha'n't
explain the length of the sojourn.
Ah, yes. The "standing egret" 'ku. Several failed to spot what
/was/ in it, some put in it what wasn't. And you were one of each,
yourself. Since that is so "par for the course," esp. from a single
example (hell, Kid, I do it myself), I felt I needn't bother to
comment until you started telling me what I didn't have your Boyish
Permission to know about haiku.
I detest commenting most haiku for the simple reason that symbol
rapidly becomes excessively personal; it takes a body of literature
(from one or more writers) to develop one. It's why so many
successful symbols /are/ traditional ones.
Too, if you need me (anybody) to tell you that you know something,
you don't.
And in that case, the worst thing I /can/ do to you is tell you.
david rutkowski
<clip>
> Nor is this dichotomy "Japanese." It's Protestant, which you have
> all over the world, and which is not a religion but a psychosis.
>
I like that idea. The Mormon missionaries here really
look and act like robots. It's embarrassing, since the
number of Mormons about equals the number of secular
Westerners where I live, which is probably about sixteen
combined, in a population of 65,000 or so.
Anyway, I admire your scholarship and poetic prowess.
david rutkowski
<clip>
>
> Ah, yes. The "standing egret" 'ku. Several failed to spot what
> /was/ in it, some put in it what wasn't. And you were one of each,
> yourself. Since that is so "par for the course," esp. from a single
> example (hell, Kid, I do it myself), I felt I needn't bother to
> comment until you started telling me what I didn't have your Boyish
> Permission to know about haiku.
As I've said before, I like minimalist poems
because they can resonate in many octaves. I
get caught in the web of meanings just as the
readers of my attempts at poetry do. It's a
great game. I never would have thought of Egret
Airlines -- but it's a good metaphor. Did you
ever see an egret crash and burn? Maybe throttled
and barbecued, but that's a bird of a different
color.
> I detest commenting most haiku for the simple reason that symbol
> rapidly becomes excessively personal; it takes a body of literature
> (from one or more writers) to develop one. It's why so many
> successful symbols /are/ traditional ones.
I think we are realizing collective consciousness.
Strange how the visionaries tear the curtains, perhaps
with all the wrong theories, but with correct results.