孫康宜認為錢鍾書（ 1910-1998)因個人宋詩詩風而對王士稹 (1634-1711)「神韻」說有所否定，然據葉嘉瑩對錢氏的評斷，與錢氏抨擊「學人之詩」等事象看來，詩風絕非左右其詩論之主要判準。且細察《談藝錄》品談王士稹之相關段落，更是有褒有貶，甚至多所迴護。筆者梳理此間脈絡後，發現其臧否乃「才薄」與「善施」正反相成；其駁責處，恰是自詩學範疇而發。錢氏藉由「神韻」系譜之架構，確定王氏承上啟下之關鍵地位，遂不滿其窄化嚴羽（生卒年不詳）「神韻」，致使後世聚訟不休，其指斥王士稹之用意實乃為嚴羽辯白。此一意圖又導源於錢鍾書通觀中西後以「冥契」釋「神韻」為詩之極致的看法，足見錢鍾書「王士稹論」隱含之詩學關懷，絕非僅出於個人詩風之好惡而妄發議論。

Sun Kangyi 孫康宜 has argued that Qian Zhongshu 錢鍾書’s preference for the Song poetic style caused him to disagree with Wang Shizhen 王士镇’s “Shenyun shuo 神韻說,” or Theory of Intuitive Charm. However, according to both Ye Jiaying 葉嘉瑩’s judgment of Qian and Qian’s own critique of “scholastic poetry 學人之詩,’’ poetic style was not the main standard Qian used in his research into poetry. A close reading of the paragraphs related to Wang Shizhen in the Tanyi lu 《談藝錄》reveals the presence of commendation, critique, and even a defense of Wang’s position. Indeed, Qian’s use of the phrases “lack of talent 才薄，，and “good at writing 善施，，demonstrate that his use of commendation and critique was complementary, and that their purport was derived from poetics. Qian moreover used the framework of Shenyun to confirm Wang’s position as key a link between the past and the future; however, he was unsatisfied with Wang’s constriction of Yan Yu 嚴羽’s Shenyun, which later incited disagreement and debate. In fact, Qian’s critique of Wang Shizhen was intended to legitimate Yan Yu. Furthermore, this position, which was formed after his mastery of Chinese and Western
poetics, originated from Qian’s view that Shenyun represented the ultimate type of poetry. In short, Qian was concerned with poetics in the i£Wang Shizhen lun 王士镇論，，he did not comment randomly or on the basis of his personal predilections.