450 chapter twelve
pulses held together by expression in a common linguistic medium,
even if this is never entirely divorced from social development. This
consideration provides some useful background to a question often
raised by poets and critics in recent years, in formal and informal set-
tings: was the Polemic a meaningful thing (᳝ᛣН৫)?
The answers given in domestic critical discourse cover the full range
from definitely yes to definitely no, which was to be expected if we
consider how thoroughly divided opinions were at the time. In be-
tween, perhaps benefiting from the distance in time, there are recent,
nuanced assessments in literary-historical and critical survey works
such as those by Luo Zhenya in 2005 and Wei Tianwu in 2006, with
Luo maintaining a neutral position and Wei cautiously siding with
the Intellectuals, mostly because of the flaws in the Popular argument.
Their differences aside, both authors decry the Popular distortion of
key concepts such as “Intellectual,” but also observe that the debate
led to much-needed, increased contemplation of the state of the art. As
for English-language scholarship, while Yeh holds that by scandalizing
the poetry scene as a whole, the Polemic did more damage than good,
Li Dian calls it a valiant collective effort by Chinese poets and critics
to reconfigure the meaning of poetry in an age of commercialism and
globalization.^26
Perhaps an alternative to calling the Polemic meaningful or mean-
ingless is to view it as a natural phenomenon—like a tidal wave, or a
thunderstorm. The impact of such things merits contemplation, as do
the forces that unleash them.
(^26) Yeh 2007a: 34, Li Dian 2007.