Second problem
If we accept the view that one poem can be regarded as better than another, the question then arises whether this judgment is a matter of inexplicable intuition, or whether it is e question of intuition that can be explained, and consequently guided and improved by rational elucidation.
If we accept the view that the judgment in question is inexplicable, then we are again forced to confess ourselves impressionists and relativists, unless we can show that the intuitions of all men agree at all times, or that the intuitions of one man are invariably right and those of all others wrong whenever they differ. We obviously can demonstrate neither of these propositions.
If we start, then, with the proposition that one poem may be intrinsically superior to another, we are forced to account for differences of opinion regarding it. If two critics differ, it is possible that one is right and the other wrong, more likely that both are partly right and partly wrong, but in different respects: neither the native gifts nor the education of any man have ever been wholly adequate to many of the critical problems he will encounter, and no two men are ever the same in these respects or in any others. On the other hand, although the critic should display reasonable humility and caution, it is only fair to add that few men possess either the talent or the education to justify their being taken very seriously, even of those who are nominally professional students of these matters.
But if it is possible by rational elucidation to give a more or less clear account of what one finds in a poem and why one approves or disapproves, then communication between two critics, though no doubt, imperfect, becomes possible, and it becomes possible that they may in some measure correct each other’s errors and so come more near to a true judgment of the poem.
Third problem
If rational communication about poetry is to take place, it is necessary first to determine what we mean by a poem.
A poem is first of all a statement in words.
But it differs from all such statements of a purely philosophical or theoretical nature, in that it has by intention a controlled content of feeling. In this respect, it does not differ from many works written in prose, however.
A poem differs from a work written in prose by virtue of its being composed in verse. The rhythm of verse permits the expression of more powerful feeling than is possible in prose when such feeling is needed, and it permits at al times the expression of finer shades of feeling.
A poem, then, is a statement in words in which special are taken with the expression of feeling. This description is merely intended to distinguish the poem from other kinds of writing; it is not offered as a complete description.
Fourth problem
What, however, are words?
They are audible sounds, or their visual symbols, invented by man to communicate his thoughts and feelings. Each word has a conceptual content, however slight; each word, exclusive, perhaps, of the particles, communicates vague associations of feeling.
The word “fire” communicates a concept; it also connotes very vaguely certain feelings, depending on the context in which we happen to place it _depending, for example, on whether we happen to think of a fire on a hearth, in a furnace, or in a forest. These feeling may be rendered more and more precise as we render the context more and more precise; as we come more and more near to completing and perfecting our poem.
اینجا مینویسم به خاطر نوشتن داستانی که سخته نوشتنش و احتمالا هرچی جلوتر میره، نوشتنش سختتر هم میشه