Frogpond 34.3 • Autumn 2011 (pdf) - Haiku Society of America

parts of a review are a misrepresentation of facts I believe
they should be corrected.
1.What BR reported: The editors declare they are simply haibun
practitioners themselves without authoritative or academic
knowledge of haibun.
What the editors wrote: …neither of us claims to be an ultimate
authority on haibun or an academic expert in literary criticism.
2. What BR reported: They then list eight favourable qualities
of haibun, though they chose the haibun by reading them
aloud and not having any pre-conceived criteria other than
those apply [sic] to writing in general.
What the editors wrote: Our critical approach has been based
on what makes for good writing generally, and the sensitivity
of each writer towards the haibun’s unique form: the effective
blend and juxtaposition of poetry and prose.
There are no definitive criteria for the haibun in English; it is an
evolving genre which bears little resemblance to the original
Japanese form whose name it bears. Nevertheless, for the purpose
of selection, and despite our different writing backgrounds,
we were easily able to agree on a list of desirable characteristics:
Strong Openings
Does the writing catch our attention immediately and encourage
us to read on?
Effective Haiku
Do the haiku complement the prose and avoid repeating what
has already been said, or what will be said? Do they add another
dimension to the haibun, a layer that would not be present if
they were removed? Do they feel consciously placed within and
against the setting of the prose and create effective transitions?
Authenticity
Does the haibun “feel” true? Is it an emotionally convincing
account, regardless of whether it is factually true or not?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
108 Haiku Society of America