affective fallacy

So when I started reading Wimsatt and Beardsley's essay I was confused. I wasn't sure what this whole "affective fallacy" meant or where it came from. However, I did a little background research and found that it is a response to impressionistic criticism which basically states that the reader's response is the most important and is what gives the poem its value. Obviously Wimsatt and Beardsley don't agree with this concept since they wrote an entire essay against it. I think I can agree with both sides of the argument. First, I'm a sucker for feelings and relating to the poem personally. It something I think that comes from high school classrooms when the teacher asked "How does this make you feel? How does it speak to you?" This in a way goes back to the We Wear the Mask poem by Dunbar in that I like being able to connect with the lines of the poem, with the truth the poet may be speaking. I always find that I like a poem better if I'm able to understand its content in a way that allows me to connect with the poet's experience. I don't believe that I will be able to do this with all poetry or writing. There is so much that I can't relate to simply based on my background. However, I don't believe that makes it a bad piece of writing and I think this is where I start to agree more with the affective fallacy concept. It seems to me that by judging a text based on reader emotion misinterpretation can occur and lead to a biased critique. When analyzing a text I do believe one needs to be completely removed from the reader's emotional response and in tune to theory and detail and description and diction. It allows the critic to give an honest response to that work.

I'm still unsure of where I stand completely on this idea of intentional and affective fallacy. I find it all a little confusing and hard to grasp. Does anyone else feeling this way?? I would appreciate any feedback on the