Curiously, a similar argument was applied to Sokal's hoax. It, too, is not random gibberish, and it is not surprising at all that the editors of Social Text found it interesting. But does it carry actual value? Going by Weinberg's analysis, it has quite a few deliberate physics mistakes that could have been spotted by an undergraduate.

I have no idea how poetry buffs go about spotting obvious mistakes in poetry, but if semi-random stuff repeatedly get accepted as genuine (Wikipedia has a bunch of links under the Literary Hoaxes category), the field in trouble.