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

Significance & Meaning
Is the writing more than a piece of description? Is the language
significant, i.e., capable of suggesting more than its literal or
primary meaning? Does a theme (or themes) emerge from the
language choices, evoking speculation and insight?
Precision of Language
Is the writing concise? Does the language feel fresh? Does the
writer avoid cliché and overstatement?
Form, Content & Point of View
Has the writing been shaped in the most effective way for its
subject matter and emotional tone? Does the dramatic development
feel satisfying? Is the point of view appropriate? Does
the choice of tense serve the haibun effectively?
Poetic Closures
Does the haibun’s conclusion retain a sense of openness or
“possibility” rather than a solid, definite ending that controls
the reader, or prevents further contemplation?
Awareness of Audience
Does the haibun transcend anecdote and/or personal experience
and become universal, i.e., of relevance to a wider readership,
to an audience who do not know the author, or even to
an audience outside of haiku circles?
In spite of having the above list of criteria for selection, we
did not consciously use these in our initial assessment of the
haibun, just as we do not have any such list in mind during the
drafting process of our own haibun.
We read each one, aloud, several times, to hear the sound and
flow of the piece and to get an overall view. We tried to see
what was interesting; not only in the subject matter, but in the
way it was expressed. We tried to be open to what could be
discovered in each piece, rather than waiting for pre-conceived
ideas to be rewarded. It was after this stage that we looked
more particularly at each piece, and selected the criteria that
we felt were most relevant to the haibun under discussion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Frogpond 34:3 109