I drew the attention of Francine Banwarth, the Frogpond editor, to that fact, and she replied with the following: "After conferring with Roberta Beary, I understand that she searched extensively for a publication credit for the version of the Seamus Heaney haiku published in Bamboo Dreams."

With all due respect, I find this hard to believe. I didn't do any kind of extensive research; I just entered the whole poem in the Google engine. In a split second, I got to the following page. One of the first links there is to one of the pages of our Irish Haiku Society (IHS) website that displays this haiku in Heaney’s own handwriting.

Ok, let’s suppose Roberta Beary tried hard to find that version but didn’t succeed, which corresponds with a certain paragraph from her review: "How this version of Heaney’s haiku changed into the version included in Bamboo Dreams is a question for another day."

A genuine reviewer would stop right here. Now, this is the moment of truth: will she or won’t she? As we already know, Roberta Beary went on to say: "A poem by Seamus Heaney, arguably the most famous haiku by a Nobel Prize winner, appears on the same page, with Kudryavitsky’s own variations in line 2." Having written this, she has crossed the line. Now we can only guess what her motives were. A statement like this is not an honest error; it is the result of an unfounded assumption, i.e. the reviewer’s misconduct. If the Frogpond editor is in the state of happy oblivion about the difference between the two, as her e-mail suggests, she really must educate herself in these matters. And I believe this publication owes me an apology for what they've printed.

Why two different versions of this haiku? Here’s what Irene De Angelis, who had lengthy conversations with the Nobel prize winner while researching for her book, writes about it: "Heaney was dissatisfied with the original version and revised it" (The Japanese Effect in Contemporary Irish Poetry by Irene De Angelis, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 30).

Perhaps if Roberta Beary, who often declared her love for Irish haiku, could find time to visit the IHS website over the seven long years that have passed since its foundation, or read the monograph by Irene De Angelis, she would refrain from making ridiculous accusations. Instead, she now puts enormous pressure on Seamus Heaney trying to force him to disown his latest revision of his haiku that I published in Bamboo Dreams. Not being able to contact the Nobel Prize winner herself, Roberta Beary enlisted two clerks from the Copyright Department of Faber & Faber to do the job for her. These two confided to me that they are now bombarding the Nobel laureate with e-mails. Seamus Heaney is still holding on and ignoring them.

Questions also remain over Haiku Ireland’s role in this disheartening story. In her review, Roberta Beary, who doesn’t know me personally, says the following: "I am an overseas member of Haiku Ireland. During my most recent visit to Ireland in October 2012 I was welcomed in Dublin by members of Haiku Ireland, who presented me with a signed copy of Bamboo Dreams: An Anthology of Haiku Poetry from Ireland, edited by Anatoly Kudryavitsky." Haiku Ireland, in their much belated statement, denied their involvement. However after these revelations they may have difficulties trying to persuade people that they had nothing to do with that unprovoked personal attack against me in the guise of a book review. As for me, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Some may argue that Roberta Beary has inadvertently done more damage to the reputation of Haiku Ireland than to anybody else's – excluding her own, of course.

I found one of the paragraphs of the Haiku Ireland statement particularly amusing. "This issue must be solved privately between the parties involved," i.e. between Roberta Beary and myself. A bright idea! So if an offense is committed, it must be solved privately between the perpetrator and the victim, between the banana thrower and his/her target; as for the community, the people, they shouldn't get involved. Indeed, why do we need law enforcement? Just imagine the amount of taxpayers' money we'll save if we introduce the law of the jungle!

To their credit, many haiku poets, mostly Irish and American, expressed their disgust with the Frogpond article. The question is, if a writer sets out to destroy another’s reputation, should a respectable magazine give him a platform for that kind of activities? Because this is exactly the situation we all have been trying hard to avoid.

On 24th April Francine Banwarth, the Frogpond editor, wrote to me the following: "We will run a correction in the next issue of Frogpond (36:2, spring/summer) and amend the text in the review on the HSA website." On the same day I heard exactly the same from David Lanoue, the current President of the HSA: "The correction will be made immediately on the online journal along with a notice of the correction. Since the paper journal has already been mailed, we will print a correction in the next issue." As of these early days of June, no correction has been made in the Frogpond article, which still accuses me of illegally rewriting the poem by Seamus Heaney. Surprise, surprise!

So what is going on with Frogpond? I sincerely hope that it is not turning gradually into the part of the landscape described in the classical American poem:

    A Bog – affronts my shoe –
     What else have Bogs – to do –
     The only Trade they know –
     The splashing Men!
     Ah, pity – then!

     (Emily Dickinson, 229)