If 'show not tell' is the primary 'poetic' engine utilised by haiku and if we remove it and apply non-haiku formal elements to that engine, what happens? Do we have a haiku - even if it looks the same? Some people get around this not-really-a-haiku problem by declaring a non-rhyming tercet to be; haiku inspired, a micropoem, a senryu.. Would it not be easier to give whatever is using the 'show not tell' instrument in three lines (with maybe some elements plucked from haiku, or not) its own product name? You know, rather than riding on the coattails of the major brand.
As show don't tell is not the main criteria of haiku...
First, allow me to rephrase the statement that I made, you know, about 'show not tell'. Let's clarify my unambiguous open question:
Without 'show not tell' as THE primary formal requirement of a haiku, its initial foundation, would we have a haiku?
-
Now, let's check this topics interesting subject . . .
blue apple
it gives birth
to a mirror
The first essential is met, Scott is evoking a virtual representation in our mind's eye. Furthermore, he has made his point transparently and succinctly. There is juxtapositioning - sparking meaning across the gap. Yes, his use of caesura give us visualisation space in which each segment of the unrhyming tercet is allowed to 'breath' (vivacious life into the substance). The mysterious MA arena between stimulus and response is populated by an evoked or invoked vision. The locale of that numinous silent void of ubiquitous mystic endeavour. There is even a potential kigo (or, more typically, outside of Japan, a seasonal reference). So, all is well. Until we get to the stumbling block. OMG! What's this about a blue apple! Then, as we puzzle this riddle, a blue Apple product pops into our understanding via some capricious lateral thinking thing. Sorted. But. Hang on a minute. Is it? Where's the capital 'A' for a proper noun? Drat. Scott must be meaning something else. Well, in that case this apple must be a Photoshop job, or some other piece of 2D art. The only other explanation might be something triggered by Issa's 'laughing mushrooms', or whatever. If the latter then we are pushing into multidimensional haiku. (Which some may believe is the future of haiku. As mentioned elsewhere, Charles Tart's 'state specific; where all levels of possible consciousness, once charted, are to be put to use by science and science's mutable consort, Maya, in her twin roles of art and religion.)
This is what is presented in 'the blue apple' item, among other things. Is it a haiku? Is it not a haiku? Well, yes and no, depending on which lenses we can access with personal credibility. Should this controversial example be hidden from the general global public on the grounds that it will add even more confusion to the formal criteria of haiku? Who is to say? Certainly not I.
-
If 'show not tell is the only characteristic of a micropoem (which may also, at the same time, simulate the haiku line varieties; typically 3, sometimes two, occasionally 1) - then, is this enough to confuse that micropoem with a haiku? Simply calling any three-liner a haiku is already a major problem here in the Anglo-West. When the 'show not tell' is applied (not an easy thing for a novice), the confusion is compounded. Being 'creative', clearly, should not be an excuse for slack understanding and application of haiku's unique DNA. Haiku form and methodology is, surely, something, although flexible, quite specific - not just anything we declare it to be under some naïve banner of individualistic freedom.
Yes, 'show not tell'. Think about it. Without this primary instrument could we have a haiku (of any stripe)? Now, whether haiku are poems or magic spells (and the latter can be argued quite simply), haiku does need a formal structure to exist. Certainly the subject matter of haiku is elusive, but the formal requirements are not rocket science. We could argue for a 'state specific' definition of haiku. That is to say, we could allot all known levels of human consciousness their own haiku locale (any interested reader could reference Charles Tart). Why not? However, this still, clearly, requires an understanding of fundamental haiku form. I'm sure there's a place for everything and that everything has its place - it just needs sorted out. In the sorting out we all learn much. Perhaps we even evolve.
my only gripe is that I sometimes find experimental poets guilty of left-brain overload--at the expense of emotional impact (heart qualities). The poems are like conundrums--clever and enticing one to decode. - al fogel
Yes, that's the way to learn - like your style. Also your reference to left/right brain (not to mention the rest). For any readers of this thread who are maybe in the dark about the 'bilateral symmetry of the human brain' (cough), here's quite a good introductory link . . .
http://painting.about.com/od/rightleftbrain/a/Right_Brain.htm
Also, incidentally, do blow the dust off (or buy for a penny on Amazon): The Dragons of Eden, by Carl Sagan. A superb introduction to all and everything; much of it adaptable to haiku 'word exploding' (hairon: haiku theory, or essay)
-
So, in a nutshell, or a pea green boat, even, we are moving into a new haiku world. On the shoulders of a geophysical/kigo model, utilising; show not tell, kireji... and all the other fundamental haiku devices that make the original haiku form tick. These devices being our tools, to select from; perhaps carried over our shoulder on a stick as we walk off the mesa, like that Tarot fool, Carlos, out in old Mexico. Maybe even getting back home from Nutwood, like Rupert Bear, in time for tea! The idea of identifying levels of distinct consciousness. These 'other worlds' of mythic and mystic experience. Perchance, blending these transdimensional universes, eventually (or initially more like), whilst we focus our rose-coloured spectacles, our psychic goggles, on these strange new landscapes. Yes! I can dig that. Let's evolve. Haiku: Level-42. Cool.
in a flight of fancy—
the butterflies seem more
than their wings
jp
You've got some interesting ideas going for you there, Scott. May the Force be with be with us all.
---
That's an interesting observation - the in/out box idea. It seems so cut and dried. So reassuringly black and white. I like it. However, a notion came to mind; how would this relate to orbital bodies around a planet? By which I mean, is there a possibility of haiku being haiku in some external relationship to your box, rather than actually being required to be in it? Perhaps budding off into other forms, eventually. You know; evolution and mutation, DNA jiggery-pokery, or some other transformational thingummyjiggeries which subsume natural mutation. I suspect there is, but how would this apply to little haiku and its formal classification in the schemas of linguistic sanity?
---
This is where we need to understand what a kigo is, you know, compared with a seasonal reference. Kigo itself is typically understood to be a cultural literary contrivence (it's actually more than that).
Example: If a butterfly lands on my sandwich as I admire a view from a hill, here in rainy England. And, if I take a bite of my sarnie and nearly eat this winged insect. And then, if it flies out of my mouth in the nick of time. To write a haiku about this lucky Lepidoptera would indicate a summer event.
what's this
stuck in the throat—
a little kite?
The butterfly, in this example, would serve as a seasonal reference for summer (NOT a kigo for summer) - at least in Nothern Europe.
jp
31-08-11