In order to represent the idea of the affective fallacy, I immediately thought of the stereotypical psychiatrist scene where a doctor asks, "how does that make you feel?" I drew (aka made stick figures) this scene, but I made the patient into a robot. Robots don't have feelings, and therefore would be the perfect objective critic when analyzing literature. I thought that this scene represented the idea that Wimsatt and Beardsley were trying to get across.
The affective fallacy is the mistake that we make as readers when we commit the terrible crime of feeling emotional attachment to the words someone has written. While I suppose it may not be considered an offense if you're just a reader, it is considered a felony by Wimsatt and Beardsley if you are a literary critic. Do you think that feeling an emotional connection to a piece clouds your judgement when analyzing it? Or does the connection enhance your understanding?