if we tell, is it a haiku

More precisely, is: Show, Not Tell, the primary foundation of haiku, without which we have an epigram or whatever? If we were to eliminate just one formal element from a haiku, which one would be the one to render a haiku not a haiku - you know, that would bring the house tumbling down?

a frog jumping

into an old pond

makes a noise

anon

old pond

a frog jumps in

the sound of water

Basho

Here's an interesting item to focus the mind:

http://www.writedesignonline.com/assignments/shownottell.html

Okay, here are some haiku which I believe don't have the 'show don't tell' technique, but I do believe they are still haiku. - John McManus

Interesting selection of examples, John. I like them all. Also, in each one the point is made with its own scenario. The 'showing'. Lets address the first on your menu, the 'hippo' one:

cherry blossoms fall—

you too must become

a hippo

Tsubouchi Nenten

Here we are witness to the recycling of nature via an evoked virtual diorama in our mind's eye. In this case the material of cherry blossoms, in all their light and luminous transient glory, will, possibly, eventually form the mass a heavy and cumbrous hippopotamus being. The scene unfolds probably at a zoo. We deepen into the haiku dream. The dream's visualisation, as we get into it, shows us blossoms turning into mulch and the mulch turning into other things, in this case becoming part of a hippo. The contrast between the two surface images (blossoms and hippo) is somewhat startling, and grabs our attention well enough. Then we move to the inner illustrations of recycling of matter. You know, 'we are starlight we are golden', type thing.

I can run the same analytical response, but with different impressions of meaning, of course, through the rest of these interesting ku you've sourced, if you like. However; firstly, how do react to this commentary - quickie that it be, and, secondly, can you 'see' the vision enbedded in each of your examples, which evidences each one's 'show' feature?

Here is a first thought or two, purely from my own ongoing studentship of haiku:

Two distinct verbal aspects become apparent when we first regard the words used to present a little haiku movie to the mind's eye. Firstly, the 'signpost' words which conjure the haiku's basic movie elements.

Secondly, we dowse the implications of the words and their grammatical combination. This focuses and begins to collate the haiku movie elements which are presenting. At this juncture our mind tries to solve the riddle presented thus far. In doing this the dispirate elements start to compose as a synergic whole.

Then, the haiku movie starts to materialise (in the right brain, from the left brain verbal triggers - for those into this way of thinking). Of course, this is not the end of the matter. The haiku movie now begins to deepen; we move through various filters which our brain uses to sequence and screen the data. By contemplating a haiku to its depth (the ideal) we hope to, finally, arrive at, more or less, its truth.

From here on in this whole fascinating process can get quite diffuse, as we connote and the haiku connotes. To compound the meditation's challenge we have those pesky little vortexes (MA) that can lead out into so many other issues altogether (some intended, some not). Not only this; a flip into the labyrinthine infinite (Zoka) may occur.

The trick, as we know, is to gently keep returning to our haiku movie - perhaps bookmarking other lines of thought for another time. At each step of the way we can get stuck at one of the inward journey's stages - and often do. (Be careful not to be fooled by this.)

However, if the spirit moves us, we return again and again to a particular favourite haiku, and press on. For example, I've been reading and re-reading Basho's masterpiece, you know, set at that old pond, for many years and still it has more to say about itself each time I engage with Matsuo's wonderful haiku

This hippo ku brings two things to mind.

First, as a non-Japanese person and an English speaker (in this instance) we read what is presented in translation, as-is.

Second, if we find the material interesting, we can do some background research.

These two approaches will, of course, extend our experience of a particular piece.

Essentially, we will have our original response version and, also, the researched version. Line-blends of the two may occur. As time passes we will probably morph a unified version, one which synthesises all that we have garnered. We can cantinue adding to this along the way, if the spirit moves us.

This is why I stand fast on my original response to this hippo haiku. Whatever else is intended by its author is not (we are assured) included in the translation, nor any footnotes. All we can do, initially, is respond to the object at hand, as presented - ideally, with a suitably experienced haiku perception. We do this by 'seeing' the ku's virtual diorama, its inner movie. As in a dream.

As for academia (and its possible abuse), use it all as a personal learning curve. But, never let it obfuscate your own authentic clarity and sincere self-expression. We all have our insights to share, as we travel the astonishing haiku way.

Hi John, I'll admit you have a point about taking a ku for face value, after all that is what is so wonderful about the many interpretations one can make of a good haiku. - John McManus

comments & contact