I'm hoping this will help clear up something, Richard:

Editors are as unique as any other given group of people. People in general think/learn/decide from the standpoint of several modalities or types of intelligence/rationalization. An editor who is fairly young and deals mostly with fiction is generally likely to look at the work from a visual modality, which holds the mantra "show, don't tell". It's now more common than the "i before e except after c . . ." thing for spelling taught in grade school (or home school ).

An editor like myself who deals with more poetry than fiction is likely to read poetry more from a auditory modality - 'reading with his ears' as I call it. This may shift toward the visual modality if the poem is obviously a narrative poem vs. a lyrical poem. It also depends on which particular school of thought for which the editor holds most esteem. If, gods forgive him, he's fallen into the Imagist misunderstanding of poetry, then he's likely to be totally visual. All editors should have one hemisphere of their brain in the verbal modality, but I've seen too much evidence to ignore that many editors tend to be too squarely in the visual.

Haiku and short verse poetry tends to hold different expectations, depending on the editor's understanding of 1) poetry in general; 2) haiku in general; 3) poetic theory and tradition; 4) haiku theory and tradition; 5) the editor's own biases toward short verse forms. Some may expect the strict tradition to be followed, and the 5-7-5 template. Some may want the "zen moment". Some may expect either a clear picture or a strong visceral reaction. Some may expect only season and nature and begrudge anything human in the poem. Others may want the zen moment with a strong image and a visceral reaction. And then there are those who will be so biased that they will only consider a short verse if it slaps them upside the head and jars something loose.

Given these variables, is it any wonder you might have such disparate feedback? It comes down to a simple binary: yes/no; however, the path to that binary is quite complex.

And then there's the fact that we editor types can be moody - and we, generally speaking of course, tend toward poor nutrition, too much caffiene, not enough rest, and too-long sessions of working without breaks and/or exercise. We earn respect by working our fingers to the bone, and that can make us a bit cranky when challenged in any way posibly conceived of as disrespectful.

Richard,

Just wanted to clarify the tone on the above posting. It was just me kicking back with a pipe and a glass of cognac making observations. Reading it again this morning, I realize it might seem a warning or be taken as more didactic than I intended.

In a forum like this, I really appreciate everyone feeling free to express themselves. The last thing I want to do is shut down an informative and interesting discussion by being overly preachy. It happens now and again . . .

But, but, but...if the repetition is fairly common in speculative haiku, and it is accepted by writers of speculative haiku and editors that publish speculative haiku, why call it "amateurish"?  Why call it wrong?  You said yourself that haiku in English are a bit different than Japanese haiku, and speculative haiku are even different still from their distant Japanese origins.

This has been my point all along about personal opinions and poetic authorities.  Why is one person's opinion more correct than another?  Isn't it ultimately up to the editors and readers of speculative poetry to decide what's right or what's wrong?  And individual opinions will differ, regardless of what "poetic rules and ideals" are thrown around.  After all, I've alredy been told previously that speculative poetry is more of a "folk art" than a "fine art", which I take to mean it follows the rules set forth by the people (the folk), not necessarily the literary (or poetic) academics.

So, speculative haiku might not always live up to the haiku "ideal".  For the sake of ruffling a few feathers, so what?  If what's done works for the majority of editors, readers, and writers of speculative poetry, does it truly matter from a practical standpoint if something like the repetition isn't "proper" to "true" haiku?

Would a movement away from the "repetition" be better?  Probably.  Do I view it as "necessary"?  No, not if it works at this point in time for the intended markets and intended audience.  Can speculative haiku, or speculative poetry in general, benefit from more influence from "literary" poetry.  Again, probably, but the rules for speculative poetry may be a bit looser than those for "literary" poetry.

This is why I'm beginning to take everything said everywhere with a healthy dose of of salt.  One should always listen to feedback from individuals, but one should always consider the bigger picture as well.