A primary reason that I’ve always thought haiku is such a good fit for lawyers is:
rules: not only are there lots of rules, but they are in dispute,
constantly evolving, often misapplied, and frequently defended
or attacked beyond all reason.
Thus, beyond the literary and aesthetic pleasures of haiku, lawyers can have fun
judging and arguing about which verses are “real” haiku, and which are merely
Because I know busy lawyers might not read lengthy essays on the definition
and writing of haiku I thought I would post a rather quick and painless guide
is it or ain’t it haiku?, which also has links to other sources. Its first version
appeared in January, 2005, as a Comment at Villainous Companions. It is
part of my compaign to rid cyberspace and society of “pseudo-haiku” that is being
called haiku merely because it is written in verse form, with 5–7–5 syllable lines.
I admit that my own haiku has certain literary pretensions. Nonetheless,
this crusade isn’t snobbery on my part, but is instead a lawyerly obsession
with agreeing on, and complying with, a shared definition of terms, so that
communication can be meaningful. My silliness credentials are solid, and I enjoy
“spam haiku”, “sci-fi-ku“, “gothic haiku”, “computer-error haiku”, “dead-
baby haiku”, “cat haiku,” etc., but they are virtually never (and usually only
accidentally) real haiku. As you’ll see here, some might be included in the
genre of senryu, but most are light, humorous verses in the poetic family
known in Japan as zappai.
After reading is it or ain’t it haiku?, you should be able to readily distinguish a
fine example of senryu from two excellent examples of haiku out of this trio of
poems by Honored Guest W.F. Owen:
single again
soap bar slivers
mashed together
fading light
rain overflows
the gutter
spring thunder
slight cracks in the
swollen tree buds
“single again” – frogpond XXVIII: 2 (2005)
“fading light” – tinywords (Feb. 10, 2005)
“spring thunder” – Mainichi Daily News (May 7, 2005)
from dagosan
strangers on
my park bench . . . . . . . . . . . . from over here
a whole new river
[May 31, 2005]
potluck
Speaking of making distinctions: I am pleased to see that when
Australian lawyers look for alternatives to hourly billing, they
understand that clients wants lower fees and more efficiency from
alternative billing methods — not higher fees masquerading under
the banner of “value billing“. (“Lawyers Weekly [AU], “Lawyers
considering alternative billing,” June 1, 2005).
My buddy Carolyn Elefant loves to urge lawyers to hang
a shingle and go solo (or micro). What I would like to see are some stats
or studies on the financial realities of going solo: How long can it take
to actually make a living? What are the demographics of those who
survive (do they have high-salaried spouses? particular specialties?
other sources of income? an existing porfolio of clients?). What is
the median income after 5 years as a solo? How many of those able
to make a comfortable living are working more hours not less than in
their big-firm jobs?
“tainted juror” story, featuring Texas lawyer Jesse Gamez, his romantic pal
on the jury, and a $28 million roll-over verdict. A Texas judge rejected
Ford’s demand for a new trial. (See Law.com, May 27, 2005).