Perrine Poetry Blog

Overall, I agree with most of Perrine's points on how to determine "correct" interpretations of poetry. I agree that not every interpretation of a poem is correct. Some ideas can be too farfetched, that the details of the poem do not match the understanding. However, I think that if the main idea of the poem is understood, everyone's interpretation of each detail does not have to be the same, within reason of course. Who is to say that Perrine's understanding of every poem is not actually the truth in which the writer intended? One of his points that confuses me is that he says the best interpretation is the most "economical." There could easily be two different understandings of a poem that cover all the details and yet both make sense. Some writer's may purposefully leave their poems open-ended to allow readers to come up with their own meanings. In this case, there can be more than one correct interpretation.

My interpretation of Dickinson's poem was close to the correct meaning. I recognized the sunset being observed, but I took some of the details to be literal. I thought the "ships" "sailors" and "wharf"were actually being seen by the writer. I feel like my interpretation is just as logical as Perrine's. I was very surprised by the difference between the two poems that were compared. When reading Melville's poem, I did not recognize that he was actually talking about stars. After he told me the real meaning, I recognized all of the details and it made much more sense. I'm still confused on how he sees the poem as a question of the legitemacy of God, though. I thought Perrine's explanatons of details to be insightful. I agreed with the point, "a symbol 'means what it says and another thing besides.'" Symbols are open to more interpretaions than direct details. I think this article helped me recognize that I cannot look at a line or detail of a poem and understand its meaning. The true meaning lies in the poem as a whole, including every detail put together.