Haiku is not Senryu!
Today I had to leave a social site group dedicated to original Haiku poetry from its members. I enjoy the format and structure, and find hard not to get whiskers flying when people violate either or both. Everyone in the group was posting maligned content. Haiku is strictly about nature. Insult to injury was their improper use of structure. The first two lines are a fluid combination of thought. The third is a separate observation tied to the first two. Everyone was making all three lines what would be a single sentence if punctuation was included, like this:
land gives way to sea’s
constant struggle where they clash
yet life strives to be
This is a Hailku, as I have come to understand based on teachings and learned poets:
milky morning fog
smothers inner forest realm
doe rests peacefully
Many were posting what they must have thought was Haiku, but was in fact Senryu (theme based on human feelings and condition) :
moonlight shimmers bright
across the pond’s smooth stillness
a peace flows through me
Granted, there is still international debate over the rules and intent of the Japanese art of Haiku. Most American poets agree with the 5-7-5 English language syllable count, the last line distant but related by theme to the first two lines, and that they be strictly about nature.
So look, we've all heard of Grammar Nazis, relating to nitpicking and over-zealous protection of grammatical structure in written content. In this case, I'm addressing the simplest structured form of modern poetry in use. Three freakin' lines. Seriously, shouldn't Haiku be composed correctly, like any other form of structured poetry?
It seems like a worthy hill to die on, at the very least. I once had an English teacher try and get a class of 35 students to adhere to a sestina, which was... considerably less wise.
Ouch. I'm not sure I have the required creative brain cells for a successful (enjoyable to read) sestina. :)
I am also a big fan of Haiku and learned a bit from this post (for example I thought Issa touched human nature in some of his haikus but maybe those are senryu?). I am not 100% sure about the structure thing though. One one hand I agree that Haiku has its rules, on the other, I feel that when I read a Haiku there is some kind of internal feeling that some other forms of poetry that break the structure rule give me as well. I guess (for me, a non-expert) it depends on intent. If the author was trying to subvert some of the rules because they thought it was the best way to transmit that feeling, I tend to really like it (for example Shiki). If they just don't really know what they are doing, it comes off as amateurish (but sometimes I will still like them!).
I understand your viewpoint, and I suspect that is the common rationale for accepting the imagery and not being exacting on the execution.
Regarding Shiki, this is where it can getting sticky. This is a Japanese art form. Originally, all Haiku was composed in Japanese. Translation causes a problem, namely in syllable count, and also in the non-linear translation (word for word, doesn't translate the same). From what I have read of translated Japanese Haiku, it doesn't fit the rules I mentioned in my post. And yet, it's correct in form and structure.
Thanks for the reference points and your take!
wrt Shiki, I may be wrong, but wasn't he considered a "bad haiku artist" in his time because he wrote about ugly stuff also and used non-standard imagery? I mean, it was not only in terms of length of each sentence!
Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia post on Shiki. (I've clipped as much as I can from the text) It rather states the opposite of what I believe you are implying:
"While he advocated reform of haiku, this reform was based on the idea that haiku was a legitimate literary genre. He argued that haiku should be judged by the same yardstick that is used when measuring the value of other forms of literature — something that was contrary to views held by prior poets. Shiki firmly placed haiku in the category of literature, and this was unique.
Some modern haiku deviate from the traditional 5–7–5 sound pattern and dispensing with the kigo ("season word"); Shiki's haiku reform advocated neither break with tradition.
His particular style rejected "the puns or fantasies often relied on by the old school" in favor of "realistic observation of nature". Shiki, like other Meiji period writers, borrowed a dedication to realism from Western literature. This is evident in his approach to both haiku and tanka."
I confess to not have read his works. I was aware of his importance to Haiku reformation. This excerpt does suggest, if anything, he was for strict regulation and realistic imagery. Am I wrong?