While initially appearing to undermine the notion that artists are geniuses, “Chocolates” ultimately reinforces it. The idea of genius has been associated with writers since the seventeenth century, and generally has meant a person with exceptional ability that often possesses a kind of rarified knowledge. The speaker presents Chekhov as a “Master,” highlighting his own belief in the writer’s genius, but he also questions the notion that genius exists on a plane separate from ordinary life and ordinary people. The genius of Chekhov, Simpson suggests, resides precisely in his connection to ordinary life, in his ability to empathize with regular people. Chekhov’s ability to change an uncomfortable and tense situation into one where everyone is relaxed underscores this “ordinary genius” because it shows his concern for others. He “fidgets” when asked about his genius. He does not have to be nor does he want to be the center of attention, and is content that the conversation has taken on a life of its own.

When the conversation becomes tense in the fifth stanza, even Chekhov is “at a loss for words,” once again demonstrating his “ordinariness,” and the power of such a seemingly ordinary topic. His “ordinariness” shows his social genius in the manner in which he graciously says goodbye to his guests, taking their hands in a gesture of affection. This final gesture reinforces the idea that a true genius is someone who belongs to the people, not someone who sets himself apart from them.

“Chocolates” is an example of mimetic verse, whose chief aim is to imitate reality and give pleasure to the reader. Aristotle defined poetry as an imitation of human actions, but historically critics have argued over what actions were worth representing, with earlier critics claiming that only the actions of “great men” were worthy of poetry. With the nineteenth century, however, and the advent of Romantic poetry, the poet’s feelings and imagination became the stuff of representation, and language a tool by which human beings could more deeply experience the world.

Simpson grabs the reader’s attention and interest in the first stanza by mentioning Chekhov, a well-known writer, and by implicitly asking readers to imagine themselves at his house in the nineteenth century. Human beings love gossip and this poem is one form of gossip, as it recounts an actual experience between a popular person and his admirers. The poem sustains a readers’ interest because it is a narrative, and human beings have an almost genetic need for stories, to “find out what happens next.” By providing details such as dialogue and descriptions of the characters’ gestures, Simpson successfully persuades readers that they too are in the room during the event. Representational, or mimetic, literature is successful when it works at the level of emotion and perception. Readers empathize with both Chekhov and the visitors as they, no doubt, have been in similar social situations. Readers need not understand the poem so long as they experience what it represents. They experience the poem through imagining themselves in the place of the characters.

It is important that the poem carries no explicit moral, simply an ending, with which readers can take as they see fit. Simpson accomplishes this by not psychologizing the actions of his characters, but simply describing them. In his essay “To Make Words Disappear,” included in his Selected Prose, Simpson writes “I would like to write poems that make people laugh or make them want to cry, without their thinking that they were reading poetry. The poem would be an experience—not just talking about life—but life itself. I think that the object of writing is to make words disappear.”