At first, I believed that a poem had abundant interpretations. I believed that an interpretation could almost never be wrong. As I read the first paragraph, I thought that Perrine was wrong. As I finished the article, I realized that Perrine was right. I realized that a poem can only have, at the most, a few correct interpretations. Perrine's argument and logic make complete sense. His criteria for interpreting a poem were simple and few. All the interpretation relied upon was that it must account for any detail and that it must make the fewest assumptions. I found it very interesting how these two criteria are very similar to the criteria for judging a scientific hypothesis.
As I read the article, it was interesting to see the correct interpretations of the poems that were given to us in class. I was surprised and shocked that Dickinson's poem was about a sunset. I never would have thought of that. I never would have thought that Melville was referencing stars in his poem. When I read the interpretation of The Sick Rose, I felt awesome because I interpreted the poem correctly. An idea that I agree with is that "A poem- in fact, any pattern of words- defines an area of meaning, no more." (Perrine, 4). Even before this article, I believed that a poem had a range of meanings. I knew that some interpretations were right and others were dead wrong. I know now that as the poem becomes longer, the possibilities of meanings shrinks. My hope is that this article has helped me see how to correctly interpret poems or at the very least, help me to get on the right track.
No comments:
Post a Comment