I�m surprised my employment of �poetical� has generated controversy. I didn�t want to seem discourteous by ignoring the fact and am grateful for Mule Deer for diverting discussion to this thread. I�m in a hurry at the moment, but if necessary, I can check an OED and/or _Garner�s Common Usage_ later.
I would argue that �poetical� was more common and correct earlier in history�say, the 18th-19th centuries--when literature and philosophy were less distinct fields and/or genres. For example, there�s lots of stuff like this published:
https://archive.org/details/completepoetical01keat. I assume we�ll not fault Keats for incorrectly employing �poetical,� so I�ll assume the word is as �correct� as �poetic.�
But it is true that �poetical� is seldom used recently; �poetic� would be more typical in most contexts. However, in my original post I expressed an interest in a somewhat archaic type of writing�one that is both thoughtful, big-picture oriented, and attentive to the expressive qualities of language. In this case, I submit that my employment of �poetical� is both �correct� and appropriate, as I�m interested �poetical� writing not just �poetic� writing. (�Poetical� could also be correctly employed today to express some light irony or sarcasm or by someone exercising poetic or poetical licenses�.)
If anyone wants to submit evidence to the contrary, I�m more than happy to listen and learn. I think sometimes our early English teachers impart to us more rigid notions of correctness/incorrectness than are appropriate when talking about grammatical and stylistic choices. There are clear rules and then there are lots of gray territories. Also, language evolves (in better or worser
ways) and is doing so particularly these days as new media put pressure on its conventions (texting, emoticons, etc.).
Ella
