05-03-2012, 05:39 PM
Well, in Japanese poetry, they would generally not personify nature in this way, but as what we call haiku has nothing to do with the Japanese form... However it is true that generally the form was meant to observe or comment on some aspect of nature, but not anthropomorphize it. Of course a syllable has little relation to an "on", nor do we generally use a kireji.
That being said, I think there is a bit of syntactical torturing going on, especially in the last line, and I don't think the clarity is where it needs to be. I don't necessarily have a problem with addressing whether nature cares or doesn't, I do have a problem if that is unclear to the reader, which it is to me. As the requirement in terms of form is about as basic as it can get, I see no excuse for a line such as
"Opalescent blue hovers tiny scattered ants."
could easily be
"Opalescent blue above tiny scattered ants."
Thus
Opalescent blue
above tiny scattered ants.
A pitiless sky.
BTW "above" also acts as the kireji
Dale
That being said, I think there is a bit of syntactical torturing going on, especially in the last line, and I don't think the clarity is where it needs to be. I don't necessarily have a problem with addressing whether nature cares or doesn't, I do have a problem if that is unclear to the reader, which it is to me. As the requirement in terms of form is about as basic as it can get, I see no excuse for a line such as
"Opalescent blue hovers tiny scattered ants."
could easily be
"Opalescent blue above tiny scattered ants."
Thus
Opalescent blue
above tiny scattered ants.
A pitiless sky.
BTW "above" also acts as the kireji
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.