what was all the fuss about? 419For the scholarly reader, the June 1999 issue of Poetry Exploration con-
tained an elaborate report on the conference by Zhang Qinghua, en-
titled “True Dialogue and the Crossing of Swords in Poetry” (ϔⳳ
גⱘ䆫℠ᇍ䆱ϢѸ䫟, #26) and reprinted at the head of a two-part
special feature on the Polemic in the July and August issues of Bei-
jing Literature. Zhang’s scholarly report was preceded in mid-May by a
piece by Tian Yong in the China Youth (Ё䴦ᑈ) daily, called “No
‘Wars’ for Over Ten Years: The Poets Can’t Hold Themselves Back
Any Longer” (कᑈ≵ “ᠧҫ”: 䆫Ҏϡԣњ, #21), later excerpt-
ed in the New China Literary Digest (ᮄढ᭛ᨬ) as “A Polemic, Yet Again,
on New Poetry’s Course of Development” (݇Ѣᮄ䆫থሩᮍজ䍋
䆎ѝ). Tian’s original title displays a sensationalism that is typical of
much of the newspaper coverage of the Panfeng conference, especially
in pieces sympathizing with the Popular cause. The author’s quasi-
objectivity is belied by slips of the pen and borrowings from Popular
polemicists:
The [Intellectual] tendency to make the writing of poetry more and
more like knowledge / intellect and abstruse learning is one of the main
reasons that present-day poetry’s plight is worsening by the day.In mid-June the China Book Business News (Ёкଚ) commis-
sioned reviews of Yang Ke’s yearbook by Intellectuals Cheng Guang-
wei (#27) and Xi Du (#28), and of Tang Xiaodu’s yearbook by
Popular author Yi Sha (#29), which were printed side by side under
the headline “What Are Their Quarrels About?” (ҪӀѝҔМ?).
Predictably, all three pieces are devastatingly critical. Cheng accuses
Yang Ke of doing harm to the intellectual-cultural spirit of Poetry of
the Nineties, seemingly oblivious to the widespread disapproval his
use of this phrase had earlier elicited. Xi Du expresses disappointment
at the sloppy, irresponsible editorial job that he claims Yang Ke has
done. Yi Sha, while recognizing this deficiency, says it is made good by
the vitality of Yang’s yearbook, in contradistinction to the mediocrity,
unoriginality and general lameness he detects in Tang’s yearbook. Yi
Sha’s claim that Tang Xiaodu had publicly questioned the legitimacy
of an anthology “edited in the provinces” provoked a fuming letter to
the editor by Tang (#41), published three weeks later and followed up
by Tang in another publication late in 2000 (#111).
Subsequently, on 1 July the fortnightly Literary Theory (᭛䆎) de-
voted its full second page to the Polemic, carrying articles by Zang