many of the views voiced during the debate are not really new, either
to critical theory or in the context of modern Chinese poetry, they are
being kept current by reenergized signifiers and recalibrated aesthetic
positions. Misunderstanding and misreading of each other’s positions
are an integral part of any debate, and this debate is no exception.
Once the personal animosity cooled down, the debate clarified many
vexing issues and identified a few intractable problems facing Chinese
poetry today. This was, after all, a valiant collective effort by Chinese
poets and critics to reconfigure the meaning of poetry in China’s cul-
tural discourse on tradition and modernity in the age of commercialism
and globalization.
Notes
- The translation of “zhishi fenzi” to “intellectual” is a precise equivalent,
but the translation of “minjian” to “popular” is problematic. There are
several options available, such as “folkic,” “people’s,” “mass,” and
“public,” but none of them could neatly cover the complex meanings of
“minjian” as its advocates have described. Maghiel van Crevel wrestled
with this intriguing translation problem (2007) and chose “popular,” but I
cannot accept the suggestion of “popularity” that this word evokes.
Absent an equivalent English term, I will simply use“minjian”throughout
this chapter. This translation problem itself reveals two contrasting value-
orientations, one of accessible universality and the other of intractable
nativism. - Maghiel van Crevel (2007) offers an exhaustive description of the polemic
in which he details almost every participant’s—major or minor—stated
position. His research is tremendously helpful to the writing of this
chapter. I should point out, however, that although the polemics ended in
2002, judging by the “cease-fire” declared by several original Pan Feng
conference participants, critics and scholars are writing about this debate
in academic journals to this day. - For example, the critic Cao Wenxuan has observed Yu Jian’s not realizing
his own theories in his poetic work (Cao Wenxuan 2002: 287). Without
suggesting that Yu Jian must be consistent in his double roles of poet and
critic, I am interested in this “inconsistency” only insofar as one reads it as
an indication of, perhaps, the impossibilities of his theory of colloquial
writing.
200 Dian Li