| Author |
Message |
jor
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2002 02:44
Reply
For anyone wanting some fun with Bermanprise... Episode summaries in Haiku form 
http://www.synapse.net/~robr/haikuenterprise.html
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2002 02:54
Reply
I know this sounds stupid, but what's the Haiku structure meant to be?  Five and four words or something?
|
jor
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2002 05:51
Reply
Haiku counts syllables:
You must start with five
Then seven syllables more:
With five more we're done.
Haiku consist of respectively 5, 7 and 5 syllables in three units. In japanese, this convention is a must, but in english, which has variation in the length of syllables, this can sometimes be difficult.
Note that the above is not true haiku -- Haiku should be divided into two parts, with a certain imaginative distance between the two sections, but the two sections must remain, to a degree, independent of each other. Both sections must enrich the understanding of the other.
To make this cutting in English, either the first or the second line ends normally with a colon, long dash or ellipsis.
As for some real background info...
Haiku is one of the most important form of traditional japanese poetry. Haiku is, today, a 17-syllable verse form consisting of three metrical units of 5, 7, and 5 syllables. Since early days, there has been confusion between the three related terms Haiku, Hokku, and Haikai.The term hokku literally means "starting verse", and was the first starting link of a much longer chain of verses known as haika. Because the hokku set the tone for the rest of the poetic chain, it enjoyed a privileged position in haikai poetry, and it was not uncommon for a poet to compose a hokku by itself without following up with the rest of the chain.
Largely through the efforts of Masaoka Shiki, this independence was formally established in the 1890s through the creation of the term haiku. This new form of poetry was to be written, read and understood as an independent poem, complete in itself, rather than part of a longer chain.
Strictly speaking, then, the history of haiku begins only in the last years of the 19th century. The famous verses of such Edo-period (1600-1868) masters as Basho, Yosa Buson, and Kobayashi Issa are properly referred to as hokku and must be placed in the perspective of the history of haikai, even though they are now generally read as independent haiku.
Do yourself a favour, and find good translations of the poets listed, or, if you can, learn Japanese 
|
wedge
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2002 08:56
Reply
Good job on the poetry lesson *nods in approlval*.....:p
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2002 01:53
Reply
The Haiku form, for some strange reason, also crops up in Bajoran culture. Here's an example from one Yana Kar, written during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor.
distant mountaintops
cardassian battleships
silently smoking
Fedeartion literature specialists use the Bajoran word "Kasali" to denote Bajoran Haiku, but the general population of the Federation simply named them "Bajku"...
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2002 01:55
Reply
Cardboard characters
Ridiculous 'storylines'
RIP, TOS history.
|
tierce
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Dec 2002 11:50
Reply
If you don't like it, don't watch it? Why torture youself with such obvious rip offs as you claim they are?
Personally I'm very entertained and just happy someone is trying to lift the heritage our dear Roddenberry left for us.
|
jor
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Dec 2002 11:57
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--tierce+Dec. 10 2002,11:50--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (tierce @ Dec. 10 2002,11:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you don't like it, don't watch it? Why torture youself with such obvious rip offs as you claim they are? <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smi.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>If you can't do proper Trek, why call it such? Why rip off a once good show and claim it is a worthy sequel? <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/win.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 11 Dec 2002 02:42
Reply
Well, Tom, all I can say is it's a free country and we are exercising our freedom to speak and criticise this pile of nonsense that is further ruining the credibility, not to mention history, of Trek.
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Dec 2002 03:42
Reply
Star Trek's history has been rewritten ever since First Contact. Zephram Cochrane, originally a guy from Alpha Centauri (cf. TOS "The Companion"), suddenly is an Earthman.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but ever since then, the Star Trek franchise to me at least has nothing to do with what it used to be.
The trend to disregard what has been going on before has only intensified with Enterprise. Again, I watch and occasionally enjoy this new series, but it ain't Trek to me.
What gets me personally is - why do they feel the need to rewrite history anyway?
|
