Some while ago I wrote an essay titled ―The Seed of Wonder: An Antidote to Haiku Inflation‖ (online at
http://sites.google.com/site/graceguts/essays/the-seed-of-wonder), and I have to remind myself from time to time what it says, which is to cultivate a sense of wonder so that we can always see the world freshly, with a child‘s eyes, as if to ask ourselves, what if the experience I‘m having right now was not going to happen again for another hundred years? This seems to be a valuable life lesson, and it extends to relationships with friends and loved ones, not just to nature and possessions and experiences. If that‘s a lesson learned, then I have haiku to thank for it.
But still, not everyone is wired for haiku, whether to read or write it, and it simply won‘t change everyone‘s world. I wish haiku weren‘t as marginalized as it often is, but I think those of us who write haiku have two responsibilities in response to marginalization. First, to the extent that haiku poets themselves have put haiku into a ghetto (rather than believing that others, such as teachers or scholars or other poets have put us there), then it‘s up to us to get ourselves out. We need to be more a part of the larger poetry scene, even if it‘s a struggle. If what we‘re offering isn‘t of interest, we have to listen to that and know when to cut our losses, but I do think we can make haiku more attractive to a broader poetry audience, without compromise, whether by educating readers more deeply on what to expect or by showcasing higher-quality poems. Innovation for its own sake isn‘t necessarily the answer (after all, as creative as experiments are, they often fail, or have limited value—or, as Jane Hirshfield has said, don‘t just make it new, make it yours). But if we can reach for higher standards in our poetry—and our criticism of this poetry—haiku will be better off. When poet Dana Gioia (who later became chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts in the United States, appointed by President Bush) was a guest speaker the 30th anniversary retreat that I organized for the Haiku Society of America, he said that haiku badly needed higher levels of criticism—not to be critical or dismissive, but to more deeply understand and analyze this art, and to share that deep understanding more broadly, more proudly, and more assertively. He made these remarks in 1998, and I still think it‘s true. We need to get ourselves out of the haiku ghetto, and showcase our best haiku writers and their best poetry in non-haiku settings.
Second, even while seeking to improve the public‘s understanding of haiku, I think we as a community also need to accept a certain degree of marginalization, and thus be content to till our field as best we can. I‘ma nondrinker, so I have no personal experience with Alcoholics Anonymous, but when I was writing my ―Haikuholics Anonymous‖ paper (see
http://sites.google.com/site/graceguts/essays/haikuholics-anonymous), I learned something that has always stuck with me. My understanding is that AA has a policy of avoiding proselytization, seeking instead to promote itself by attraction. The net benefit is that those who express their attraction by attending their meetings tend to be more deeply motivated to address their needs. Imagine if haiku societies had ten million dollars to blow on publicizing haiku. That would seem grand, but we‘d probably end up selling our sizzle mostly to fly-by-nighters, people with a passing interest who respond to an advertising campaign rather than having a deeper, self-motivated interest in haiku poetry. Haiku Society of America or British Haiku Society membership numbers could increase ten- fold, but then those numbers would die back just as quickly. So there‘s value in attraction rather than mindless promotion.
On the other hand, haiku suffers from deep public misunderstandings. The idea of calling anything in 5-7-5 syllables a haiku is rightly referred to as an urban myth, in English and many other languages. I think it would be worthwhile to correct those misunderstandings in a much more public way, but at some point we need to stop beating a drum and remember when to rely on the AA publicity model of attraction rather than proselytization. Fortunately, the current information on the Wikipedia article
61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130