If this is not the case, Arnold says that the author's time would be better spent in preparing ideas for others, through a critical effort. .
In support of this idea Arnold compares the success of Lord Byron and JW Goethe, saying that "both Byron and Goethe had a great productive power, but Goethe's was nourished by a great critical effort providing the true materials for it and Byron's was not" (2105). This is to say that the poet should understand the world about which he is writing, and it takes a very critical analysis to do this. Arnold feels that Byron lacked this ability and that is why his legacy did not last. Arnold goes on to discuss the flurry of literature from 1800-1825, referring to it as somewhat premature because it did not have a proper storage of fresh ideas. Though these poets had an immense creative force, they had nothing to aim this force at, which could be why there is so much natural poetry during this time. .
Clearly, this lack of vital thought and fresh ideas is a problem that faces nearly all writers, and up to this point Arnold can only point to two occasions in which this naturally took place, Ancient Greece, and Renaissance England. So, should all writers simply become critics, hoping to create that great flurry of ideas? Arnold doesn't see this as necessary saying that, "Even when this [flurry of ideas] does not exist, books and reading may enable a man to construct a kind of semblance of it in his own mind, a world of knowledge and intelligence in which he may live and work" (2106). He points again to Goethe, who lived in Germany during a time of great critical and academic force. This created a society that was prepared to discuss culture and sophisticated ideas, and though they were not actually glowing with life and thought themselves, this was enough.
Arnold continues on by looking at the French Revolution, that event which should have created so many great works.
