my grandfather's portrait
recognizing that look
in my daughter

—Jeffrey Winke
        

About the author: Jeffrey Winke, jeff_winke at yahoo dot com

Jeffrey Winke is an industrial writer and adjunct university professor of modern poetry, business communication and public speaking in Milwaukee, Wis. His recent book What's Not There: Selected Haiku of Jeffrey Winke is a 2002 Merit Book Award winner. His motion graphics haiku collection, Chances, has been selected as a Cool Site winner. And a collection of Winke's essays combined with found art was recently exhibited at Milwaukee's Green Dragon Freedom Cafè gallery.

 

Responses to the haiku for 5 August 2003 by Jeffrey Winke

  1.  
    bob richardson (orgbob at webtv dot net)
    2003-08-08 09:35:20
     

    jeffrey: the "noon rush" man

    i wonder if individuals realize, there is this tendency to continually gyrate towards "sameness" in one's life

    first line:
    "my grandfather's portrait"

    a universal creator of an instant image.

    then came that noon (rush);
    V
    V
    V

    "recognizing that look
    in my daughter"


    the second and third lines were , each on it's own, enough to form a memorable moment; however, here, all three lines together left more to be said. rather than one going "oh yeah", the mind goes "and that being"

    some mystery is good, and some just isn't; as a math problem with one too many unknowns for it to be solved


    jeffrey asks much of the reader in imagining the "look"

    having read jeffrey before, that's jeffrey's way...

    WOW, reading this piece in closing, i realize what jeffrey is saying, could this be from a "contact high"

    possibly, what is the "look" is unimportant, however a hint helps

    jeffrey, could i be wrong...

  2.  
    todd claus
    2003-08-08 10:21:46
     

    Jeffrey, I had a moment very similar a few years ago when I saw a picture of my great-great grandmother as a young woman. I thought I was looking at my sister the two were so close in expression. The only nit I have with the poem is that the image is a little too big. What I mean, is that the reader doesn't have a natural point of focus. As the reader, do I focus on the portrait or the look or the daughter or the writer who recognizes the look? There are too many unknowns and without focus Iím lost.

    I donít know what it is that makes up the best haiku/senryu, but of the ones I like most the dominant factor is the way they sharpen and narrow my focus onto one element of the overall image and let me find my own way around the rest of the poem.

    Bob: to gyrate is to wind or coil or revolve. Although a person can gyrate towards something, it is commonly understood that gyration is a fixed activity. I recommend Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition.

  3.  
    bob richardson (orgbob at webtv dot net)
    2003-08-08 15:32:14
     

    oh boy, here we go again.

    to gyrate: to move in a circle or spiral, revolve around a fix point or on an axis. in botanical terminology; to circinate, and even in zoology terms to have convulsion.

    i won't suggest for you to take your pick, todd; however i will continue.

    todd, your recommendation is duly noted, but in your haste to correct me, you missed the entire point of what i was saying.

    if one is moving towards "sameness", doesn't it come to mind that whatever one does, (writing in this case), there is always this tendency to return to one's initial focal point or writing style. todd, even if we have a wobbly gyro, which tends to move away from it initial axis point, it will attempt to or even continue it's rotation.
    gyration need not be fixed; that which is revolving may wander or move about, as it gyrates.

    there's more for you, todd

  4.  
    bob richardson (orgbob at webtv dot net)
    2003-08-08 15:36:43
     

    are you ready, todd...


    i'll try to keep it simple, todd; you are aware of the planets, as they revolve, going millions(billions, trillions and more) of miles through space, though not fixed.

    todd, even in your own words, "to wind or coil or revolve. Although a person can gyrate towards something...", you are defining my intentions.


    todd, as it spins, it comes full circle; todd, as jeffrey writes, he comes up with the same style, to his credit.


    in my applaud to jeffrey, his focal point and his "gyration", "to me", is in and to the abstract, or so it would seem.

    todd, think not in haste; in spite of this, think more in terms of depth, rather than scratching the surface

    should i, now, give you my opinion of merriam-webster



    todd, if you have read jeffrey's work, you should understand jeffrey will "take you there" and "leave you on your own"; pure "jeffrey winke"



    "condescending
    possibly todd...
    should reread my initial words"

  5.  
    todd claus
    2003-08-08 15:57:28
     

    I need it much simpler, if you please, since I didn't understand a word of what you said.

  6.  
    bob richardson (orgbob at webtv dot net)
    2003-08-08 18:20:06
     

    todd, "that", you didn't have to explain to me, for it was previously assumed you wouldn't, and thereby understood.


    "gnats flew back and forth...
    lion, after it's meal
    rolls in the dirt"


    by the way, todd, the above has no connection, nor reference to you, merely something that crossed my thought path; i think...

  7.  
    Michael L. Evans (trailermike at charter dot net)
    2003-08-11 03:52:50
     

    Hmm - well, gee Bob, instead of going through
    all the "gyrations" to try and justify your use
    of "gyrate", maybe it would have been easier to
    just use "gravitate" ... some people might even
    think it to be the better word, for use in your
    statement.

  8.  
    bob richardson (orgbob at webtv dot net)
    2003-08-11 07:20:20
     

    michael, i did think of the word "gravitate", but it seemed too "steady", too "predictable" of a word. i needed something that seemingly was off balance, but still stayed it's course, as jeffrey's words.

    oh, by the way, i wasn't trying to justify the word, simply breaking it down, so some, like todd, could understand my usage and reasoning.

    and michael, there is a difference between "justification" and an "explanation"; i readily admit there may be faults in my thinking, though until shown the error of my ways, i'll continue.

    true some may think "gravitate" the better word, and some may not; at least it shows you are thinking a little deeper, michael.
    in addition, in using the word
    "gravitate", the worn path is being followed.


    in a discussing, michael, views are either fortified or rectified, ending one's labor in a stupor and not realizing that is where one dwells.

    parting thought: "is today to be the day, deborah is to do the critique"

  9.