Coleridge returns to debating Wordsworth’s ideas about poetry. His essential difference with Wordsworth is over naturalistic poetic diction. Coleridge argues that Wordsworth’s poems are not “rustic” in their effects (127). Rather, Wordsworth’s poetry is pleasurable due to three factors: the naturalness of the subject matter, its representation, and the transcendence of these. Coleridge queries the “desirable influences of low and rustic life in and for itself,” since country life entails hardship (115). Coleridge praises the balance of Wordsworth poem “Michael” but suggests that “The Thorn” should have been spoken in the poet’s own voice. Coleridge also doubts whether rustic language that is adapted for poetry differs from more refined forms of communication. He doubts whether rustic objects “can justly be said to form the best part of the language” (118). Instead, “the best part of human language is derived from reflection on the acts of the mind itself” (118). Coleridge also claims that Wordsworth confuses “real” with “common.” Finally, Coleridge takes issue with the Wordsworthian definition of poetry as taking place “in a state of excitement,” because the “excitement” arising from the appreciation of a truth lies in the sophistication of the perceiver (120).