Perrine's Essay

Perrine's approach to determining the "correct" interpretations of poetry was actually interesting to read. Although there were some aspects I didn't completely agree with, for the most part, he made some sense to me. When I began reading the essay, this quote perturbed me, "That all interpretations of a poem are equally valid is a critical heresy." I first disagreed completely with this. I believe that some poems have a wide variety of interpretations. But then, as I continued reading, I actually grew to understand where Perrine was coming from. His analogy of connecting the dots of a break in drew me in.  It definitely was more believable to think a man broke in than a monkey. I came to the conclusion that although each reader may come up with a dependable analysis, there are always some that make a lot more sense than others.

As I read Pierren's view of the multiple poems, my interpretations were challenged. Emily Dickinson's untitled poem really threw me through a loop. I literally took this poem as being about a ship on the ocean. I never even thought it could possibly be about a sunset or a field of flowers. Another poem that I was completely wrong about was "The Night March." How could anyone figure out that this poem was a metaphor for a starry night sky? I guess I am just a very literal person. This essay has helped me to broaden my mind a tad of the vast scope of symbols. I don't believe that poems can be about whatever we want them to be, however, most poems have deeper meanings that I may never fully understand.