i would be shocked if the 'malestream' readily understood what paleoclay images are/could be. fertility fetishes [yuk] and girl's dolls [surely they jest]. if i had a nickel for every impossible-to-believe-yet-accepted theory i've read i'd be doin ok. projecting back has been a disaster; refreshing is gimbutas. the best clues are the sculptures themselves. throw out every theory and what remains is the presence of the female. she as nature and nature as she. she herself. this is not within the scope of 'manthropologists' and 'monarcheologists' [male and female]. we wouldn't need revisionists if everything hadn't been seen thu 'male-colored glasses.' tis my belief.
yes in the book, but i haven't read it. just don't read about haiku or much haiku--for years. nor do i know what artists, men or women, are about anymore. sometimes i find this strange.
in the annos i was musing about '80/81. i would be interested if japanese women of olden days were 'allowed' their own body content; 'course i doubt if men were either.
that's why i say western poets 'pick and choose' and once that's done it's not 'japanese' haiku. the embedded japanese spirit impossible anyway. [they might play/sing mississippi delta blues but not that spirit embedded in the originators, even the stones couldn't do it. nor do i have that particular 'blues' spirit.] i seem to end up writing non-haiku haiku which is apparently what keeps me involved.
angry lee who demanded a definition from me i made up one just for him:
>see the last issue of fp--jim's 1st issue--for full page definitions. when i see this printed every several years i'm saddened. doubt they speak to japanese definitions. more like european 'age of endarkenment' via english/american romanticism to nyc/nj sincereness and desperation for something handy to tell people. you will better understand my concern re Nature, separation, humpty-dumpty. i hope. afraid i got lost in our letter maze. we need to figure an easier format. lovemm 8/24/98 'haiku isn't what haiku is what haiku isn't'
>i don't have a definition of my haiku or anyone else's and don't have a need for any and don't find that strange at all. in the '91/92 annotations i said something like: my current definition of haiku is that haiku can no longer be defined. today i say: haiku has never been defined. there of course are a lot of haiku 101 rules floating around but they are for those who must have such. after so many years one establishes one's own inner doings which help form the moment that is written. if those inner doings don't mutate from time to time one is stagnant. so not knowing what's what even tho spooky is where the art resides. i've been very lucky over these 30 years in haiku--tho i never felt it at the time--to have evolved beyond myself many times. what i thought was isn't and what i thought wasn't is. one can't ask for a life better than that.
> a relatively short poem/non-poem expressible if shared with others in a variety of visual configurations if written and in a variety of tones if spoken or sung which flows or is contrived in response to what one sees, hears, touches, smells, etc, and in particular to what one thinks and feels at a given time within any aspect of one's personal development. c 10:50 a m est 8/26/98 mm
back to 'as is 90s contents'