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

First there was the ‘Haiku Consensus’; now there are the ‘Haibun Criteria’ (Ken Jones -  BHS Ludlow Conference 2002). 

     One way or another, rules are necessary - from the incomprehensible, simplistic principles of the Cosmos to the pen-point disciplines of written Art; ‘the welcoming of constraints is, perhaps, at bottom, the deepest secret of creativity,’ says D. Hofstadter.  The Haibun Criteria, a set of proposals designed to guide those who aspire to writing acceptable haibun, do not, superficially, appear too unreasonable.  But in parallel with my concerns re haiku fingerprinting (BS 11.2 & 11.4; for computer, read ‘sets of rules’), I would make the following comments:

1 all rules need to be sound, and consistent in themselves; but all rules are only ever as sound as the person who uses them.

2 all too often, precedents as to the interpretation of rules are set early on by those with first foot in the door, or the ‘loudest’ voice (figuratively speaking).

     So what possible problems lurk in the application of the Haibun Criteria?  Well, for instance, say that a particular textual form or style (A) is deemed invalid in haibun.  Then any would-be critic-judge has to be able to recognise A - either as the whole, or simply part of the text being assessed; and this is not necessarily as straightforward as it may seem - even if the critic-judge actually set the rules in the first place, eg (from the Haibun Criteria): ‘I am ... open to any relevant style ... but beyond prose poetry or, at least, a prose that has some literary claim, there is no place for prose that reads as if from ... a travel guide ... etc.’  This somewhat ambiguous statement seems to suggest that no text from a travel guide, however poetically transformed, might ever be used in haibun - as neither might an un-poetic extract, used for some literary purpose.  Clearly, we are much at the mercy of our man in The Establishment who first of all has to be able to decide whether a piece of text reads like a travel guide, or like travel guide contents paraphrased into poetic prose.  Then, more importantly, he has to be able to decide whether or not that piece of text - either in plainspeak, or in varying states of poetic transformation - still has a claim to validity because it is being used to some literary purpose, ie to infuse some ‘beyond the text’ significance.  From all of which we may conclude that sound critics are always more important than sound rules. 

     Some readers may recognise that I am talking from the experience of recent haibun rejection -  well, suggested partial rejection actually; (‘Thoughts, Words, Writing’ - attractively presented, with a Preface that is part critical response, part textual analysis is still available from David Cobb, funds to BHS; a complete analysis from myself on request).  To give an example of rejection criticism: ‘after the asterisk, the prose ... gives way to a descriptive guide book style’ - if this middle section were excised, ‘we would have a very pleasing haibun’.  Well, they might, but I wouldn’t - because there are four distinct sections to the haibun that are significantly linked in an almost renga-like fashion; and to rip out the suggested section would totally destroy the overall structure, leaving only ‘very nice’ bits and pieces.  The haibun in question is about Time, looking for Kyoshi’s haiku stone in Kew Gardens, and much else beyond the text.  It ends with two strangely disembodied haiku which ‘dangle detached ... and are better used in some other context’.  I had hoped that it would not stretch too many minds to realise (from context) that their disembodied state signified their ‘blowing in the wind’ after authorial demise; and I can’t help wondering what Kyoshi would have thought if his haiku stone had been deemed invalid because it had become detached from his actual life.  These two haiku also lead back through time to the beginning - in best Eliot-Bhagavad Gita style (in my end is my beginning etc) - because this is the fate of all our writing after we’ve pegged it - it gets recycled.  And us?  It’s what we’re meant to do -  / just re-record / and fade away...just re-record / and fade away / ...

     My contention is that modern English haibun might employ description of anything that one can relate to in a haiku way - even typical guide book information, suitably paraphrased and used to significant purpose.  And it is no use Establishment asking for haibun with ‘layered textual densities’; ‘complexity that gives depth’; or expanded ‘vertical axes’, if these qualities are not recognised when they occur.  Consistent lack of challenge to read between the lines is certainly not going to further haibun’s literary status; but the onus of meeting such challenge must rest partly with the reader.  What is important here, it seems to me, is that any complexity should never deny a reading at a simpler level.

     As for ‘haibun prose’, let us write in whatever English style works. What is of paramount importance is the dialogue between haiku and prose - this is the guts of haibun.  Not merely illustrative, each haiku should, at least, enlarge its immediately adjacent prose; at best (I speculate) the whole text might be charged with visions of the moment that touch the raw edges of some prevailing mood.