Jordan bespeaks about Mark Halliday's essay in recent Pleiades. My copy is at home, & I am at work, & I read it a couple weeks ago... but I'd say I was more convinced by Halliday's arguments than Jordan is.

Paraphraseable meaning doesn't have to be "earnest". In my view it adds depth to the ruffled surfaces. & it's part of communication. Unless the hegemonic post-argument of Cindy Fickle still stands (ie. poetry doesn't "mean", doesn't "communicate", doesn't "say", doesn't "point", doesn't "fill in the blank").

I agree pretty much with Mark Halliday (in his review in Pleiades), when he says that every good poem can be paraphrased. As long as you admit that there's always a better, deeper reading down the line : the one even the poets themselves missed. "The builders builded better than they knew."

Thinking of Wallace Stevens' letters (they might have been emails) where he explicates every stanza. So I might try to do something like that with Rest Note. Read along with me (follow the bouncing ball).

Enjoyed Mark Halliday's review of Helen Vendler book in Pleiades. He's got a light touch & a logical mind.

Also the M. Theune essay on poetic structure & "the turn". However, his point seemed rather feebly argued. Theune is onto something : but if he's going to talk about structure vs. current notions of (surface) "form", he needs a broader range of evidence. The "turn" is just one aspect, I would think.

Thanks to Jeffery Bahr for pointing toward PLEIADES, and some fine reviews (online) by Mark Halliday.

(Halliday's reviews, beneath their charm & urbanity, show some Aristotelian spine & rigor. Wasn't I, not long ago, complaining about dearth of good reviewing? It's out there, flooks.)