Because the subject matter was so personal, the work of several prominent mid-twentieth century poets has been termed "confessional” poetry. But confession is a bad metaphor for what those poets did. The motive for confession is penitential or therapeutic—by speaking openly about personal guilt and suffering, the poet hopes to make them easier to bear. But these poets always approached their writing as artists, and their motive was aesthetic. Writing from experiences like madness, despair, and lust, their aim was to make effective art, not to cure themselves. To treat their poems mainly as documents of personal experience is not just to diminish the poets' achievement, but to ignore their unanimous disdain for the idea of confessional poetry.
Consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply.
The passage implies that the poets discussed did NOT
A. think that a poet’s motivation for writing was relevant in evaluating that poet’s work
B. experience any relief of their personal suffering as a result of writing
C. apply to their own work the label by which it has subsequently been know
I believe that C is correct, since the poets didn't apply to their own work the label "confessional poetry" by which it has subsequently been known. (Is my reasoning sound?)
I think both A,B don't look correct, since they can't be indicated from this passage. But it seems to me that "Writing from experiences like madness...not to cure themselves" may imply B.
I would like to know how native speakers of English approach this problem. Thanks！