In limetree Kasey asks what I mean by language charged by meaning (in reference to Edson). I was referring to Pound's famous triad of phano, melo, logo - peia:

"I throwing the object (fixed or moving) on to the visual imagination.

II inducing emotional correlations by the sound and rhythm of speech.

III inducing both of the effects by stimulating the associations (intellectual and emotional) that have remained in the receiver's consciousness in relation to the actual words or word groups employed"
(ABC of Reading p. 63).

I don't find much of any of these in Edson. The words do have meaning--an almost purely denotative meaning--and the anecdote has an allegorical significance, but the words themselves are not charged with meaning. That was all I meant. Those delighted with Edson's narrative imagination will enjoy his poetry more than I do.

Isn't that the point of his use of the prose-poem, to strip away everything ostensibly and conventionally "poetic"? He doesn't even claim to offer a richly developed poetic language. I'm not saying he tries and fails.