The Value of Emotions?

"This paradox, if it is one, is the analogue in emotive terms of the antique formula of the metaphysical critic, that poetry is both individual and universal - a concrete universal. It may well be that the contemplation of this object, or pattern of emotive knowledge, which is the poem, is the ground for some ultimate emotional state which may be termed the aesthetic. ...It may well be. The belief is attractive; it may exalt our view of poetry. But it is no concern of criticism, no part of criteria."
~Wimsatt and Beardsley, "The Affective Fallacy"

So what, then, is the critic supposed to do? Wimsatt and Beardsley make it very clear that your emotive response cannot ever be the basis by which you judge a poem or piece of literature. Let me give you a (rather trite) example...

I searched for "concrete poetry" on the all-knowing Google search engine (insert big smile here), and found this. Now, I know this really is a trite example, but please bear with me. I think this poem is cute. If I had a student or a child come up to me and give me this, I would say I loved it and would go and put it on my refrigerator (again, please bear with this example...). And I would be completely genuine in saying I thought it was cute, because, come on, let's be honest... concrete poetry is usually cute, sometimes clever... but does that make it good poetry? Because it brings a smile to my face, or because I "like" it, does that mean it's the best poem in the world?

I would venture to say, absolutely not. This poem is not the greatest poem in the world. Far from it, actually. So, one example down... but what about a Robert Frost poem? Take, say, "The Road Not Taken." That poem, for me, is inspiring. The meaning, the call of the poem inspires me to take that road, to risk that path that so many others have rejected because of its seeming impossibility. And I do judge the poem as "good," good because it articulates a message that I have never heard before in such language. Good because it inspires me. Good because, yes, I have an emotional response to it. And according to Wimsatt and Beardsley, I have absolutely no authority by which to judge this poem because of that.

As I demonstrated in the "&" poem, I see their point. But when we read a poem and have some type of emotional response (whether or not the author intended us to have that response.... and wouldn't they intend something... they are poets, aren't they??), doesn't that mean we have read the poem deliberately, in some way that we see through the words to the meaning of the poem, which further produced a response from our emotions? And perhaps then we go back and study the poem, establishing what exactly caused that response. How does that not give us credibility to judge a piece of literature or poetry? If we go back, can we not justify our emotional response through the medium of the poem itself? And isn't that criticism? I think Wimsatt and Beardsley believed that you can have an emotional response to a poem... you just had to justify it. You have to become a student of the poem, and only then can you make your response public so others can talk about your it.

But what if you can't "justify" it? What if the meaning of a poem or piece of literature is just so important to you? Can you judge that piece of literature just on its own, for that alone? Wimsatt and Beardsley obviously didn't think so... but I wonder... in the Christian circles, I often believe we judge a piece of art / literature / music on the basis of the emotional response it produces, and if it produces something "against" our beliefs, then it must be bad art (and vice versa, of course). But does that mean that it's not good literature, just because it goes against what we believe? Perhaps that's what Wimsatt and Beardsley were getting at... our emotions often lie or are biased. But do we ever have a right to say that something is "evil" because the emotional response we felt was overwhelmingly "bad." (I'm thinking of overly-sexualized literature or music, etc....). Does that mean it's bad literature? And if we can't judge on the basis of our emotions in some sense, who can really judge literature to begin with? We all have emotional responses... how can you separate one from the other, saying you won't judge a poem on it's emotionally-producing response, when you have emotions for or against it yourself? And that begs the questions... when, and how, can we ever truly, unbiasedly, judge a piece of literature??