Poetry Magazines - The best collection of poetry magazines online - Simon Armitage

i’ll unsee U in mydreams, Stanley Pelter, £6 (including postage and packing) or US $9 bills. Cheques to be made out to the British Haiku Society and sent to Stanley Pelter, Maple House, 5 School Lane, Claypole, Newark, Notts, NG23 5BQ

If undeconstructed sex turns you on, Stanley Pelter’s i’ll unsee U in my dreams (the ISBN title - there are six others!) might be just what you’re looking  for. On the other hand, if you find words like ‘fuck’ or ‘cunt’ a turn off, perhaps something more genteel would suit you better.   Before going into specifics, this book, in general, charts the beginning, middle and end of a relationship using haiku/senryu form. What comes across is a great deal of joy, particularly INTHEE INBETWEENITEE sections.

     You will by now have gathered that Stanley challenges not only the conventions of haiku, but language itself by moulding words into sounds until they express exactly what he wants them to - just like an artist mixing paint. Perhaps Stanley’s background in visual art is what makes him less accepting than most people of the words that are on offer (around 1 million in the English language, I believe). But he is also a revolutionary and clearly wants to shake us all up. In the introduction he quotes from Pablo Picasso, André Breton and Clement Greenberg. He states that the aim of the book is ‘...to question, prod, and provoke...’ and goes on to say that its purpose ‘...is to examine some of haiku’s do’s and don’t’s...’ Why? Because haiku ‘...is already evolving into a mass-production method of baking middle-of-the-road, whiter-than-clean, sometimes-dying-from-a-syntax-virus, look-alike, soft-centred haiku...’ This criticism certainly can’t be hurled at Stanley’s work, although people may want to toss in a few others. He covers himself against this (although I don’t think he needs to) by stating that his aims are more important than quality.

     The style of writing changes through the six ‘sections’, beginning with WE MEET IN THE PASSION CENTRE. I find the poems in this section the least interesting in terms of content and attitude. For, despite his linguistic unconventionality and forthright attitude, there is a form of conservatism in the content of these haiku: after each fuck/for a while/they sleep and semi-covered light/semi-see-through night dress - a 'turn on'

     In the section called WE MEET INTHEE INBETWEENITEE Stanley’s pleasure and joy exude from each haiku as he stretches and pulls the language to reveal his feelings: shimmery shaakery - owhirr loins r reddy/ and slipperys pink and mesuckeeu/amingling amourousing - /two old toads bling There are also a number of explanations of the haiku and the writing process: for the first of the above haiku, Stanley includes his writing process notes on the adjoining page - see Blithe Spirit 11/3 p22. For the second, he gives an explanation of his choices: ‘...‘Aminglmg amourousing’ is sensed more romantic than ‘mingle’ or ‘mingling’. This is increased with the onomatopoeic effects of ‘ourou’, the sexual uplifting & intimacies of love, through, with and in ‘amour’...’ The rest of the book is written
in relatively standard English.

     There are two uses of ‘I/I’ and ‘you/U’ which, Stanley says, give him more flexibility and enable him to express changing feelings as the relationship progresses into oblivion. I find such uses irritating:  they have other connotations in my mind. The use of ‘I’  I associate with those haiku poets who want to denote that they don’t have an ego.  Which, let’s face it, is totally ridiculous.  It’s our ego which keeps us sane. An inflated ego is another matter, and most of the poets who use ‘I’, paradoxically, seem to have enlarged egos. The use of ‘U’ I associate with mobile phones and text messages - it feels out of place in this context.

     When I first read this book I found it challenging and thought provoking. I still believe it to be so. It raises questions. For a start, are these poems haiku or senryu? For many they would automatically be senryu because they deal with human relationships. I perceive the majority as haiku because in most of the poems the attitude is not satirical or ironical. And, of course, the book has to be looked on as a ‘whole’ rather than assessing each individual haiku - it is a sequence.

     So, has Stanley achieved his aims and objectives? I think he is right when he says that haiku poets often skirt round the edges when it comes to writing about controversial subjects, like ‘sex’. Having said that, one meaning of ‘intimate’ is ‘private and personal’. It may be that people want to keep their relationships to themselves, or to reveal only what is not too personal. I also question, in haiku which are revealing of another person, whether the partner has been consulted and given their consent. In the introduction Stanley exalts cubism for its deconstruction techniques, yet, judging by the content of the book, he hasn’t deconstructed sex. Isn’t there a contradiction here?

     I agree with what Stanley says about the current state of haiku. And part of the reason for this situation is that haiku in this country are predominantly written by formally educated white middle-class males. This book  challenges the status quo but also reinforces dominant views on sexuality: I find the words ‘fuck’ and ‘cunt’ difficult because they are often used with such antagonistic venom.

     The ‘melding’ of language is the most interesting component of the book. I don’t think it can be disputed that it works, in this context. There is something childlike about it in its playful creativity, and also in its ‘innocence’, which might be seen as organic to the state of intimacy.

     The longer poem at the end, I don’t like the tone of at all, and there are one or two poems which come across as contrived: she cries/drips from the roof/fall But there are some good ones too: soft touches/U relax everywhere and early sun/speckles our touch - /hand-in-hand

     This book is extraordinary. Of course it can be criticised. I’ve stated where I have misgivings, and I also think that Stanley has tried to do too much in one volume. He has, however, been very brave, and if you buy this book, for better or worse, it will make you think and feel.