David:

Ben Mesches forwarded to me your e-mail and link to your blog about the Texas Appellate Haiku contest. As co-director of the contest, I felt obligated to respond.

You are absolutely right that our definition of a haiku was steeped in ignorance and popular misconceptions. I have no doubt that the 5-7-5 definition is something we were taught years ago by misguided English teachers, but it is also something reflected in several contemporary websites. I regret that I did not stumble on your site in my perfunctory e-mail search. You are also correct that appellate lawyers are usually sticklers for thoroughly researching and following the applicable rules. At least that is true when they are writing appellate briefs with money, liberty, or professional reputations on the line — not so true when they are dashing off a quick verse for laughs.

You are also correct in pointing out that our rules completely ignore that fact that the subject matter of haikus should invlove a poetic contemplation of the natural world. In the original Texas Appellate Haiku contest in 2004 (in which I was a frustrated entrant, and not a director or judge), I attempted to comply with this guideline and was frustrated that my efforts were not rewarded, while most of the winners made no such attempt. At least the first place winner compared a docket equalization order to “a migratory bird.” Nevertheless, by the time the 2006 contest rolled around (in 2005 we did an Appellate Limerick contest), I was persuaded that making a purist distinction between haiku and senryu was pointless, and that it was easier to dumb down for the masses rather than to try to educate the masses. Ultimately I guess it depends on how broad your definition of the natural world extends, and whether it includes body parts such as “tongue” and “cheek.”

In short, the point of this exercise was to create a comical juxtaposition of the somewhat dissimilar worlds of appellate law and haiku poetry. We read the winners at our otherwise dry and boring annual meeting, and the audience was greatly amused. We never intended for this to be a serious attempt at classical haiku, and we never envisioned this being disseminated on the internet where our abuse of the form would cause purists to be plunged into haiku purgatory. If we offended you sensibilities we apologize, we were just trying to have fun, and we did. Maybe we’re just easily amused in Texas. At least it sounds as if you enjoyed your righteous indignation as much as we enjoyed our irreverent ignorance.

Kevin Dubose
Alexander Dubose Jones & Townsend LLP
1844 Harvard Street
Houston, Texas 77008

See “lawyers sentenced to haiku purgatory, without appeal ” at f/k/a [formerly known as]. WAC? loves Dante, and serenely awaits guides Virgil and Colin Samuels at next Blawg Review, No. 86…….