我想如果大致上將寫作分為散文和韻文兩種是可行的，因為我同意這兩種文體具有不同的本質。就像克拉頓柏克所說的，詩的本質是即時的情感，而散文則蘊含較長時間對公理的探索、詢查、耐心和控制感性情感的能力。公理（或說是對現象的解釋）需要經歷一個思考的過程。一個好的散文作者並不是冷血的，但是他必須試著不讓文字或圖像左右他想要表達的中心想法。我們都有閱讀不好的散文的經驗，作者拉拉雜雜講一堆，沒有重點，甚至在拉雜之中也沒有吸引人的枝節。這樣的作者有可能是一個飽讀詩書、具有豐富內涵的人，因為他能夠提到很多的事；可惜的是，如果他能夠像一個很好的插花家，挑選適合的花材（即使有各式各樣不同好的花材在眼前），適當的修剪（即使有可能剪掉美麗的部分），呈現一個完整的主題，這樣或許就會好一些。作為一個閱讀者，也必須要有耐心的將一篇好的散文讀到最後，才能夠捕捉作者完整的想法，才能夠真正體會到文章的美好。因為在這樣閱讀的過程中，可以隨著作者的思考進化，推演出最終的結論。一個好的讀者在閱讀完將一篇好的散文之後，可以因為文章的美好而讚嘆不已，但是也不會停止提出問題。

I think it is reasonable to classify writings in two forms: prose and verse. We can find a distinct nature in each of them. I agree with what Clutton-Brock said: “If the cardinal virtue of poetry is love, the cardinal virtue of prose is justice; and, whereas love makes you act and speak on the spur of the moment, justice needs inquiry, patience, and a control even of the noblest passions.”** I interpret the term "justice" as how a writer comprehends the nature of the happenings. It involves all the processes of thought. However, a good prose writer is not cold-blooded, but he will not let words or images generate irrelevances to his purpose. We all have experiences of reading bad articles, which the authors try to say many things, but eventually lose track of what they really want to say. It doesn’t mean that these authors are empty-brained. On the contrary, they might be very knowledgeable. If not, they cannot mention so many things. It would be good if they can do what a good florist does: trimming the flowers adequately, even though he might trim off the beautiful parts. As a reader, I have more pleasure reading a prose to the end. In this process of reading, I could evolve with the author’s thought and arrive at the conclusion. I could harvest even more in the best prose, whether narrative or argument, that I don’t stop to applaud the author, nor do I stop to question him.

**A. Clutton-Brock, Modern Essays