Perrine Poetry

I believe that Perrine has a very valid point in determining the "correct" interpretations of poetry. Although I am a believer that there should be many equally correct interpretations of poetry, Perrine's argument is much more sound than mine. I definitely agree with Perrine's first point that an interpretation should account for every detail of the poem; however, I do not agree with the point that the best interpretation has the fewest assumptions. I disagree with this point for two reasons: I do not believe there is a best interpretation and I believe that these assumptions are what helps the reader personalize the poetry to himself by allowing him to identify with it. Perrine presents an excellent interpretation of Emily Dickinson's untitled poem, but the whole time I read his point I was thinking, "why can't it still be a garden?" Of course, there are those the details such as the daffodil being singular and being unable to explain the wharf. The explanations, though not as reasonable as Perrine's sunset, I believe are still valid. The garden could look like the color daffodil and the the butterflies and bees could very much so have stopped "mingling" when the wind stopped. I would not be so quick to call the garden explanation "incorrect", but I do agree that Perrine's sunset explanation is a very good interpretation.

Perrine surprised me with the interpretation that the Melville poem was about the stars. His interpretation is excellent, and this interpretation definitely helped make sense of the poem for me. He clearly showed that the  interpretation of it being about an army is wrong and I agree with this. However, I believe he went a little too far with disproving the interpretation about the army when he said, "...no legions ever 'stream' in perfect order." This is a detail made it seem to me that he is being a little too hostile towards this interpretation and that he is so determined to bury this interpretation. I think that the perfect order is an innocent detail. We call many things perfect without them actually being perfect because nothing is perfect, so why would stars be the  exception? I also agree with Perrine's point that everything should be taken in context. I believe this article presents a valuable point towards the interpretation of poems. In the future, I will definitely consider whether my interpretation fits every detail, rely on few assumptions, and that the meanings of words are taken in context. However, I still believe that these stipulations can not limit poetry to one perfect answer because nothing is perfect.