In a message dated 06/12/2000 8:47:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<  Yes,
 the decision to write a poem and make a radio broadcast is a matter of some
 consequence.  But the meaning of a radio broadcast and of a poem may share a
 great deal, and it is meaning that I am choosing to speak about. >>


there's meaning, and then there's meaning.  what inevitably happens when the
meaning which derives from a poem is conflated with the meaning of material
which is exterior to the poem, is that the later tends to receive the most
(and certainly the most decisive) emphasis, usually to the point of
hopelessly eliding completely the poetic dimension of the former.  this has
certainly been Wei's practice.  poetic 'meaning' does not derive from the
same logical process that produces speeches, critical works, etc., it is
fundamentally an aesthetic experience.  it's common knowledge -- or at least
it used to be -- that poetry itself is the best expression of its meaning,
not the critic's trick of paraphrasing it, of saying exactly what it has
nevertheless never said.  but, as has been pointed out from time to time,
literary criticism is a fairly recent aberration and, characteristically, its
practitioners, like all johnny-come-latelies, are heavily invested in
hegemony, recognition and dominance being more important than artistic truth
-- and certainly more immediately salable.

joe brennan