Perrine Poetry

I believe that Perrine has an interesting approach to determining "correct" interpretations of poetry, but I believe that it is his opinion. Although he makes valid points, I do not fully agree with him. He thinks that there are certain poems that have only one exact meaning, but others that can be interpreted in different ways as long as the meaning is similar. How are we supposed to know which one is which? On the other hand, the idea that no can explain the meaning of their own poem struck me, because it makes great sense. Perrine said it was like "admitting failure." I can agree with that, because the poet is supposed to have created this image for us to interpret, and if he/she has to explain, the different assimilations of readers are ruined. For me, it has been a long time since I have dealt with poetry. This article makes me realize that interpreting a work is much more particular than I remembered. I will try to make my analysis fit every detail of the poem as best as I can. This article makes me feel dumb, because I feel like I would never think of those things on my own sometimes.

The idea that "if it is contradicted by any detail it is wrong" somewhat confuses me. I feel like there are ways in which anyone can say that you are contradicting yourself, but to you it makes perfect sense. It's interpreting a poem, not solving a math equation. Contradicting Perrine, I feel that poems can have different meanings, but math equations have just one answer. I do agree, though, that the most satisfactory interpretation "relies on the fewest assumptions not grounded in the poem." However, I feel that this statment makes shallow interpretations seem okay, instead of digging for something deep. I think it is kind of annoying how he goes through and matches plurality versus singularity, but it makes me think to do the same thing from now on. I think Perrine presents accurate points, but, at the same time, this article should not be a rubric for how our interpretations should be graded.