{"id":3874,"date":"2005-05-31T16:57:18","date_gmt":"2005-05-31T20:57:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/05\/31\/objection-theres-no-juxtaposi"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:41","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:41","slug":"objection-theres-no-juxtaposition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/05\/31\/objection-theres-no-juxtaposition\/","title":{"rendered":"objection, there’s no juxtaposition"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

A primary reason that I’ve always thought haiku is such a <\/FONT>good fit for lawyers<\/FONT><\/A> is:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
rules<\/STRONG>: not only are there lots of rules, but they are in dispute, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
constantly evolving, often misapplied, and frequently defended <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
or attacked beyond all reason. <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Thus, beyond the literary and aesthetic pleasures of haiku, lawyers can have fun <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
judging and arguing about which verses are “real” haiku, and which are merely<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
faux haiku<\/FONT><\/A>.   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Because I know busy lawyers might not read lengthy essays on the definition <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and writing of haiku I thought I would post a rather quick and painless guide <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is it or ain’t it haiku?<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM>, which also has links to other sources.  Its first version <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
appeared in January, 2005, as a Comment at <\/FONT>Villainous Companions<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>.    It is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
part of my compaign to rid cyberspace and society of “pseudo-haiku” that is being <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
called haiku merely because it is written in verse form, with 5–7–5 syllable lines.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n