What is haiku? What is it not? One approach by some
Japanese and some Westerners is that haiku exists only in the
Japanese language. Haiku is indeed a product of Japanese
literature, descending from the much older literary form
renga. Reductio ad absurdum, well yes, haiku may be only
in and of the Japanese language. But then it would follow
that Ibsen, Moliere, Shakespeare and Tennessee Williams are not
dramatists; surely this form of art can only be achieved in old
Greek as perfected by Sophocles, Euripides, et al.
The Schools presented in the Internet lists of the World Haiku
Club are configured as "Japanese Traditional,"
discussed in English by Susumu Takiguchi, and Western-style, as
described by Ferris Gilli: "Hibiscus." I have no doubt
that difference exists in the thinking and haiku of these two
teachers. I do not think that too many fundamental distinctions
are present. What is vastly different is language. I am not
confident that I have ever read a translation from the Japanese
that expresses the subtlety of the original. So too, I question
that very many Japanese readers possess translation from the
finest English-language masters. One can gather many
translations of a particular Japanese classic haiku. They vary
tremendously and great scholars still debate. Plainly, the
obverse must be true. I can glean the meaning of words and
phrases, and such translator/scholars as Makoto Ueda (all
Japanese names here are in Western order) helpfully give not
only the Romanji and the haiku in English but the word-for-word
English. I believe absolute Japanese fluency, which I do
not possess, would be needed for me to tell good from great. One
would need not only a translator's skill but also the ability of
a fine haikuist. The leading haikuists in English have
incredible language skill, great subtlety, and great
insight. Does this translate in the other direction?
Plainly there are a great number of inferior haiku written and
shared in English. I assume there are haiku "students"
in Japan today as well as throughout history. Their haiku
are not translated or promulgated in the West.
My own developing philosophy of haiku does indeed arise mostly
from Japanese sources. Western ones too, but I believe
many of those also derive from Japanese thinking and practice.
Just as a French band can play the jazz developed in the US, and
an orchestra in China can play Austria's Mozart or a Viennese
waltz, so too may I understand and at least attempt to write
haiku. I am not a Zennite or a Buddhist. I am a product, vis a
vis haiku, of lectures attended, comments by haikuists to me,
plus books, journals and Internet essays I have read. I am both
an amateur naturalist and a lover of language. I make no claim
to be authoritative in this essay nor brilliant in my own
efforts at haiku. There is neither the space here, nor have I
the ability to propound a complete theory. I'll explain just
some of these Japanese influences on me, but not pose as an
expert. I proselytize only that writers of English haiku, maybe
especially those new to it, think about these issues. Perhaps as
an outcome, they might develop a cohesive philosophy of their
own. It is my conviction that much short poetry is mistakenly
shared as "haiku."
I ask rhetorically (and others have posed this long before me),
"why call it haiku?" By this I mean, why call
what you write "haiku" if not to acknowledge the
tradition and philosophy of the "haiku" that is
Japanese haiku? The differences of language and form are
very well covered in an essay by a Japanese, Keiko Imaoka.
Her writing has influenced me. http://www.ahapoetry.com/keirule.htm
One line, three lines, English syllables vs. Japanese sound
beats - all are covered and easily, for me, put to rest. The
languages are different; the expression of a haiku is different.
But at its essence what is haiku? The Internet resource
can provide you with as many fine definitions as it has me. Two
men named Mark have compiled URLs about haiku: Mark
Brooks:
http://epiphanous.org/mark/haiku/resources.html
and
Mark Alan Osterhaus:
http://www.execpc.com/~ohaus/haiklink.htm
Among
others, look there for definitions by Barlow of Britain,
Alexeyev of Russia, Mena, Missias, Higginson, Davidson, and
Reichhold of the USA. At a website
http://www2.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~dhugal/haikuhome.html
hosted
by Dhugal Lindsay, an Australian living and working in Japan, is
found a fine collection of essays and wisdom. He is a member of
a "school" of haiku, led in Tokyo, by Yoko Sugawa.
Sugawa-sensei traces her lineage from Shiki through one of his
disciples/followers Kyoshi Takahama. Kyoshi was sensei to
Shuoshi Mizuhara who taught Shuson Kato, sensei to Ms. Sugawa.
"It is a fact but not a truth." - Shuson
Kato
Lindsay adds:
"He
often said this of people's haiku. Don't make haiku that
read like a news report. It is not enough to state a
scene. It must be done in such a way that it illustrates a
fundamental Truth at the same time."
Lindsay's comment addresses what is and what is not haiku.
It is important to emphasize what Kato and Lindsay have said.
These words go a long way toward defining the essence of haiku.
With many complex aspects or parts, haiku definitions in this
way can lead to a philosophy, a way of haiku.
Sugawa (bi-lingual, writing in English) explains some of the
"HAIKU IS NOT" in the following quotations:
"Photographic descriptions of nature" are not
haiku.
I think of this as a Kodak - a snapshot. This is not
haiku. Some of his own philosophy was shared by Susumu
Takiguchi-san on the WHC forum (2-16-00), excerpted from his
biography of Kyoshi. He (also bi-lingual) offers a similar
guideline:
"Try
not to report. Express it."
A closely related point by Sugawa warns that
haiku
are not "simple descriptions or accounts (prose)."
I often encounter on haiku internet lists, and as a haiku
editor, what might be termed "shopping lists." This
can take the form of a list of three separate things on three
lines, or, if two things stretched over three lines, still just
a listing of things. Perhaps: my mother/ wrote out a
shopping list/ I went to the store -- or: first rays of dawn/
dew on the brick wall/ a peeper sings. One is mundane; the
other beautiful. Neither is haiku. Haiku attempts that are
drawn from television or movies and described by the writer are
similarly flawed. News events and such I call "CNN"
haiku. Susumu
Takiguchi comments in this vein:
"Try
to write a haiku only about what happens to you (i.e.
avoid fictitious, or imaginary renderings)."
"Straight facts and common knowledge devoid of
emotion" are not haiku.
The choice of words to describe a scene concretely and also
allow connections to both an underlying symbology and the human
emotions becomes crucial in terms of success as haiku.
Lindsay quotes from a 1947 essay by Otsuji (Seki Osuga):
"If
one does not grasp something - something which does not merely
touch us through our senses but contacts the life within and has
the dynamic form of nature - no matter how cunningly we form our
words, they will give a hollow sound. Those who compose haiku
without grasping anything are merely exercising their ingenuity.
The ingenious become only selectors of words and cannot create
new experiences for themselves."
Takiguchi
puts it: "Try to write a haiku only when you have been
deeply moved, strongly inspired and poetically touched by the
subject matter."
He
goes on to add " . . . do not fake poetic
feelings."
[Sugawa, continued]
"Pieces
containing too much religion or intellectualism" are not
haiku.
Also,
haiku
is not made with: "Rampant metaphors springing from the
intellect."
It is not the role of the writer to place his process of
thinking in the haiku. A haiku should lead not to obvious
conclusions of what the writer emoted, believed, or interpreted,
but rather set up a sharing of the experience. In this,
the reader may partake and bring his or her own reactions.
Susumu Takiguchi warns:
"Try
not to conceptualise, intellectualise, philosophise, moralise,
or theorise."
"Pieces hiding their lack of content through ambiguity
in language" are not haiku.
This is also close to the previous point of what is not haiku.
Some writers use an inner language, private meanings, or hint at
things only known to them. Uncommon words, or words used in
unconventional meanings are a part of this type of non-haiku, or
at least failed haiku attempts. The use of enigma, religious or
otherwise, is not haiku.
"Explanatory pieces leaving nothing for readers to
discover themselves" are also not haiku.
This is a haiku attempt that just tells the reader ALL about it.
The relationships of the elements are spelled out. One
variety is the "cause and effect" haiku when an
antecedent to the observation is made plain. A haiku that
has its own answer. Sometimes I think of these as "so
what?" haiku. The writer has failed to consider what
is it about the subject(s) that should be shared with
others. A reader encounters this kind of verse and may
reply . . . "and, what about it?" We have
Basho's teachings on this in several ways:
"
. . . a haiku (hokku) is made by combining things."
"A verse that is not cut is not a haiku
(hokku)."
"Those
who are good at combining or bringing together two topics are
superior poets."
Rather
than listing things or explaining all about things, haiku may
better be considered in terms of the juxtaposition (I often
prefer the term "apposition") of the elements or parts
and then the creation of the space (the "cutting")
between them.
Yoko Sugawa offers some positive points regarding what IS haiku.
What is haiku or what should be included:
"If your haiku has captured a Truth, there is no need to
decorate
your poem with flowery words."
"Seasonal words (kigo) are very important to
haiku. However in
the modern world where the seasons have lost much of their
omnipotency and where we wish to share our haiku internationally
a more relaxed stance on kigo could be called for. Kigo
need not
necessarily place a haiku in any particular season but could
rather be included simply to relate the haiku to the natural
world."
"To state without stating. In order to say ten things
a haiku
presents only two. Due to its length, every word is of the
utmost importance."
This reminds me of the wisdom of old Master Basho, passed to us
by his followers' writings in the manner of Plato for Socrates.
Basho is quoted as asking:
"Is
there any good in saying everything?"
And with wisdom of great import for me, Sugawa-sensei
wrote:
"One
cannot make good haiku simply by going about one's life in a
day-to-day fashion. It is necessary to hone one's senses
to the world around one and take an interest in all things great
and small."
She
also wrote:
"The
key to making haiku is that when something of the natural world
causes one to start in surprise and revelation . . . this shock
caused by an encounter with a Truth is yours and yours alone.
Throw away all preconceptions and predetermined ideas about the
object and experience it as if you were a young child. In
doing this, one is able to catch pure
and fundamental Truths in nature and through this discover
Truths
within oneself and humankind in general."
Some of this truth-finding was spoken by Basho more than three
centuries ago -- his admonition to
"
. . . learn of the pine from the pine, learn of bamboo from
bamboo . . . "
Truth
is subjective always because perception is subjective. But, the
truths of things in their natural world, the interrelations of
these truths with each other and with humankind, are knowable.
They can be shared . . . with haiku.
I adopt an aesthetic view that the definition of Art is the
expression of emotion. Thus a creator and a perceiver are
necessary. This theory encompasses Bernini, Balzac, Buson and
Busoni. In haiku, the emotion created in the reader/listener is
derived from our simple phrasings of "truths" of
nature, their consonance and/or dissonance. The emotion is found
within the reader, as the observation is the province of the
author. Certainly a serious writer of haiku is always trying to
communicate with the reader/listener. The haiku is put to paper
with this in mind. A writer does the best to show what was seen
and experienced - the perception of "truths." That is
the extent of responsibility.
In closing, the words of a modern English-language master, or
sensei, Robert Spiess, Editor of Modern Haiku:
" . . . the poet must select and arrange the words
of the haiku in such a manner that when the haiku is read or
heard, the words arouse or evoke in the reader/listener those
immediate feelings that the poet had."
