ABSTRACT
The psychological model is neither airtight nor a sieve; neither a classic nor a contraption. One can neither bridge the gaps between physical and mental action in it nor accept Richards' assurances that time will close them in the way he suggests. Take these statements, found within the space of two pages:
enough is known for an analysis of the mental events which make up the reading of a poem to be attempted. [PLC, 8r]
Has it become clear? The obvious distance between sophisticated poetics and materialism was never a hindrance to Richards. Yet to point out "gaps" between his physical model and higher consciousness, while necessary, is also to miss the mark. 6 Surely Richards knew it was far too early in the history of scientific inquiry to be so definite about mental action? We should ask: what does the model reveal of the author's underlying assumptions, commitments, and goals? is it logically coherent? are its complexities equal to the task of explicating the complexities of poetic text? If not, should Richards have turned to psychoanalytic literature?
