Comments | hooks_and_books: Rethinking the Scifaiku Manifesto

hooks_and_books

Rethinking the Scifaiku Manifesto

Apr 01, 2009 09:52

In 1995, The Scifaiku Manifesto was written, exploring the potentials of combining the Japanese haiku with science fiction imagery. Fourteen years later, it may be time to dust off the manifesto, and ask if the language is as strong as it can be, or if it might need to be reworked. I came to this thought after reading the Jan/Feb 2009 Star*Line as ( Read more... )

star*line, scifaiku, scifaikuest, theory, poetry

Comments 8

Comment from SciFaiku-Ten-Forward hooks_and_books April 3 2009, 02:24:31 UTC

From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SciFaiku-Ten-Forward/... )

(The comment has been removed)

hooks_and_books April 4 2009, 02:15:07 UTC

For me, this captures a moment, so it certainly works as scifaiku. Again, the Belly Peterson piece is 5-7-5, and really works well, so it's not that you can't do it, but being a slave to 5-7-5 without understanding the potential of scifaiku or everything else that goes into a scifaiku, 5-7-5 becomes cluttered.

I couldn't agree more ext_473163 March 24 2011, 04:06:49 UTC

I agree, 17 syllables and 5-7-5 have always been a snag. And overall craft is key. I've never been a fan of poems that just said something silly about sci-fi and seemed to just throw in words to make it all fit. To me, a large fraction of the best scifaiku has thoroughly followed the rules of craft for haiku, with natural elements, some sense of a season word, a cutting point, and a juxtaposition of 2 images with un unexpected connection. There are good reasons these traditional principles worked for haiku. For example, the season word is largely about establishing a setting, a time and place. In one word, you're able to ground the whole poem. I think people continue to innovate and break these rules successfully, but it's worth knowing the elements of craft.

Thanks for your great analysis.

-- Tom
(original Scifaiku Manifesto author)

What? clinesteron December 3 2011, 15:19:47 UTC

The void yawns.
Somewhere inside it,
Something stirs.

Re: What? hooks_and_books December 3 2011, 18:27:38 UTC

While I like the idea of your posted piece, I think it might benefit from tightening of the language. I get that you're dealing with the unknown, but if one is observing the void yawning, how could they also observe the something stirring? There seems to be a shift in POV here, which leads to narrative, which leads to an elimination of a moment.

Perhaps make L1 a past tense somehow, with a stronger and less cliche verb as a participle, and then show the reader exactly how we know something is stirring--what exactly do they see that lets them know that something has stirred?

Re: What? clinesteron December 3 2011, 21:01:54 UTC

No comprendo. Who is this "they"? If one can see the void, surely one can also see something stirring within it? That is to say - I don't see any POV changing. Or am I being obtuse?

Re: What? hooks_and_books December 4 2011, 02:56:52 UTC

"They" is the observer in this piece, the person or people watching this void.

Now, with that in mind, what you've got presented is fairly large--spacial rift, tears in the very fabric of the universe, etc. Something that huge would require a great distance to be observed, and would take a great time to open. Therefore, until this void is actually fully open, there's little that one can see inside of it that would be vague. Either they're seeing something specific stirring (tentacles, eye stalks, scales, giant maggots, what have you) almost instantly OR they'd need to wait to see this thing. Either way, this needs to be more specific and detailed. As it is presented, there's a shift in either time or POV implied that eliminates the moment.

Thread 5