05-04-2012, 02:43 AM
Billy makes a very valid point, in fact one I have often harped on, in Japanese the haiku is as much a visual art form as it is a literary one. This visual representation is of course totally lost in English, nor should it be confused with the pseudo-poetic form we call concrete poetry. How does a person understand specific concepts of a foreign art form, when they are the product of a culture where individuality is as highly regarded, as it is denigrated in the other? The closest I've ever heard in terms of "on" in English was Allen Ginsburg's description of a phrase in his poetry, which he described as being one breath long. A breath in this instance being the unobstructed release of "spirit" that causes the vocal structure to resonate with it's imprint. I would wager few "poets" have even an inkling about what he was talking, yet if he had been Japanese, even the none poets would immediately comprehend what he was talking about. Can we even begin to understand what it is like to write to an audience where so much is already understood. There is a cultural intimacy that exists, that we are lucky to develop anything close to it with maybe one individual: someone who knows us so well they can finish our sentences for us. This occurs for them not just on a linguistic level, but also on a symbolic level in both art and writing, as well as most areas that if you ask 10 English speakers to define such, you would get 10 different definitions.
But back to topic, as Billy rightly points out, any discussion of the "kireji" must also include it's effects on the visual aspect of the poem, yet this is never discussed because in English we have no way to begin to represent this, even if we understood the grosser aspects of this idea. In English we can talk about the dynamic tension (although we do so more in relation to prose) between two opposing aspects, in such an example the kireji is both the fulcrum and that which can tip the balance one way or the other. Having this power, it also has the power to create balance, or a better term in discussing haiku would be harmony. Through balancing opposing tension, one gives rise to harmony. At least in practice, in the West, this is a foreign concept to us. We do not think in terms of harmony, we think in terms of subduing and bending a thing to our will. We define good and bad in terms of the effects on us, as an individual, personally. We do not see things systemically, nor do we think in terms of working towards systemic balance, and yet, that is what I believe the kireji is basically about. Still, viscerally I can only grasp this as if it were dualities we were discussing, which in the West are always opposing forces, not complementary ones.
So, if one were serious about "haiku" in English, I think one would have to define kireji in terms of what occupies a similar place within our ideology because using the Japanese definition, even if we could understand it, would make no more sense to us than do suicide bombers, which is to say, we might grasp it to some degree intellectually, but it could never speak to us in a meaningful way. Of course the "on" would need to be redefined in a similar way. Doing so would of course take the haiku form out of it's current simplistic shape, which is of course it's primary attraction for many people, as it is easily mastered, requiring no prerequisite foundation in poetics, or any obvious talent, as all one has to do is create three lines of 5-7-5 syllables. It is hard to imagine any kind of defined form that would be much easier than that. I think it is admirable to study any of the forms, ultimately I think all the pseudo-scholarship about haiku is just an attempt to legitimize an overall simplistic form that could be taught to a third graders, along with such other dubious forms as concrete poetry and acrostic, none of which require an iota of poetic talent. But then I am a bent and misshapen thing, and this is probably just a natural outflow of my inherent cynicism.
Dale
But back to topic, as Billy rightly points out, any discussion of the "kireji" must also include it's effects on the visual aspect of the poem, yet this is never discussed because in English we have no way to begin to represent this, even if we understood the grosser aspects of this idea. In English we can talk about the dynamic tension (although we do so more in relation to prose) between two opposing aspects, in such an example the kireji is both the fulcrum and that which can tip the balance one way or the other. Having this power, it also has the power to create balance, or a better term in discussing haiku would be harmony. Through balancing opposing tension, one gives rise to harmony. At least in practice, in the West, this is a foreign concept to us. We do not think in terms of harmony, we think in terms of subduing and bending a thing to our will. We define good and bad in terms of the effects on us, as an individual, personally. We do not see things systemically, nor do we think in terms of working towards systemic balance, and yet, that is what I believe the kireji is basically about. Still, viscerally I can only grasp this as if it were dualities we were discussing, which in the West are always opposing forces, not complementary ones.
So, if one were serious about "haiku" in English, I think one would have to define kireji in terms of what occupies a similar place within our ideology because using the Japanese definition, even if we could understand it, would make no more sense to us than do suicide bombers, which is to say, we might grasp it to some degree intellectually, but it could never speak to us in a meaningful way. Of course the "on" would need to be redefined in a similar way. Doing so would of course take the haiku form out of it's current simplistic shape, which is of course it's primary attraction for many people, as it is easily mastered, requiring no prerequisite foundation in poetics, or any obvious talent, as all one has to do is create three lines of 5-7-5 syllables. It is hard to imagine any kind of defined form that would be much easier than that. I think it is admirable to study any of the forms, ultimately I think all the pseudo-scholarship about haiku is just an attempt to legitimize an overall simplistic form that could be taught to a third graders, along with such other dubious forms as concrete poetry and acrostic, none of which require an iota of poetic talent. But then I am a bent and misshapen thing, and this is probably just a natural outflow of my inherent cynicism.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.