在一九七二、七三年間發生的「現代詩論戰」，是台灣現代詩批評史上的一筆重要紀錄，也是台灣現代詩發展過程中的關鍵點。本文認為歷來對這場論戰的討論多集中在七○年代新興詩社與五、六○年代創作主流的歧異、時代環境與民族認同的背景、西方現代主義的誤讀與在地化等外圍的討論，現代詩的本質問題常只是附帶的舉例，並未被專文檢討。因此本文欲從詩與現實的距離為討論焦點，檢視寫實與超越寫實兩方論點如何理解、提出、建構、調整、定位詩與現實最理想距離的過程，整理過往的煙硝，理解當前或未來現代詩書寫與批評的養份來源。本文認為現代詩文體的獨特性，讓它游移在現實與想像之間，當詩人或詩評欲清楚定位它與當下時空的關係時，必然會有相當的困難度和曖昧性，因此，詩與現實最理想的距離，或許是結合寫實與超越寫實兩方的論點。

　　The controversy about modem poetry in 1972-1973 is an important record in Taiwan modem poetry history. It is also an important event in the development of Taiwan poetry. Many discussions about this controversy concern with the difference between rising and former poetic groups, the background of history and identity, and misreading of Modernism. The issue of poetry character almost had never been discussed. In this paper, we try to focus on the question of distance between poems and reality. To find out how realist and the surrealist establish their own viewpoints and what is the ideal distance between poems and reality. To arrange the criticism on poetry in the past would help to realize contents of poems at present. We think modem poetry is an unique literary form. It could shift from imagination to fact. When poets or critics try to define the relationship between poems and real matters, it will be quite difficult and ambiguous. For this reason, maybe we should combine two sides of discourse and then will know the ideal distance between poems and reality.