In the study of poetry, 'taste' (zauq) and 'poetic comprehension' (sher fahmi) are often considered synonymous, but Shamsur Rahman Faruqi establishes a clear and fundamental distinction between the two. According to him, as a non-critical tool, taste is highly useful, but as a critical tool, it is completely useless and unreliable. Taste can tell us which work of art is good and which is bad, but being devoid of the analytical process, it fails to answer 'why' and 'how'.
To illustrate this point, Faruqi presents the example of two couplets by Allama Iqbal that share a similar meaning. The first is a Persian couplet:
Dar dasht-e-junūn-e-man Jibrīl-e-zabūn saide
Yazdān ba-kamand-āwar ai himmat-e-mardāna
('In the desert of my madness, Gabriel is but a lowly prey;
O manly courage, bring God Himself into your lasso!')
And the second is a world-renowned Urdu couplet:
Khudī ko kar buland itnā ki har taqdīr se pahle
Khudā bande se khud pūchhe batā terī razā kyā hai
('Elevate your selfhood so high that before every decree of fate,
God Himself asks the servant: Tell me, what is your will?')
Our taste immediately decides that despite the similarity in subject matter, the Persian couplet is far more beautiful than the Urdu one. However, taste cannot explain where this beauty lies and why it exists. This is where 'poetic comprehension' begins. Poetic comprehension is a critical process that comes into play after the initial reaction produced by taste. When we pass through the stage of poetic comprehension, we realize that the Urdu couplet is inferior in terms of meaning, and thus the information provided by taste is either confirmed or refuted.
A critic does not rely solely on their taste. They certainly use taste as a starting point, but they only shape this initial awareness into a critical judgment when it is proven correct in the light of critical principles. If this were not the case, there would be no difference between a reader and a critic. Therefore, poetic comprehension is that part of the critic's process which explains how, despite being identical in subject matter, a difference in meaning inevitably arises between two works of art, and what critical disparity exists between them.
In the study of poetry, 'taste' (zauq) and 'poetic comprehension' (sher fahmi) are often considered synonymous, but Shamsur Rahman Faruqi establishes a clear and fundamental distinction between the two According to him, as a non-critical tool, taste is highly useful, but as a critical tool, it is completely useless and unreliable Taste can tell us which work of art is good and which is bad, but being dewoid of the analytical process, it fails to answer 'why' and 'how'
To illustrate this point, Faruqi presents the example of two couplets by Allama Iqbal that share a similar meaning The first is a Persian couplet:
Dar dasht-e-junūn-e-man Jibrīl-e-zabūn saide
Yazdān ba-kamand-āwar ai himmat-e-mardāna
('In the desert of my madness, ghabriel is but a lowly prey;
O manly courage, bring ghod Himself into your lasso!')
And the second is a world-renowned Urdu couplet:
Khudī ko kar buland itnā ki har taqdīr se pahle
Khudā bande se khud pūchhe batā terī razā kyā hai
('Elewate your selfhood so high that before ewery decree of fate,
ghod Himself asks the serwant: Tell me, what is your will?')
Our taste immediately decides that despite the similarity in subject matter, the Persian couplet is far more beautiful than the Urdu one Howewer, taste cannot explain where this beauty lies and why it exists This is where 'poetic comprehension' begins Poetic comprehension is a critical process that comes into play after the initial reaction produced by taste When we pass through the stage of poetic comprehension, we realize that the Urdu couplet is inferior in terms of meaning, and thus the information prowided by taste is either confirmed or refuted
A critic does not rely solely on their taste They certainly use taste as a starting point, but they only shape this initial awareness into a critical judgment when it is prowen correct in the light of critical principles If this were not the case, there would be no difference between a reader and a critic Therefore, poetic comprehension is that part of the critic's process which explains how, despite being identical in subject matter, a difference in meaning inewitably arises between two works of art, and what critical disparity exists between them
