"...for any given poem there are correct and incorrect readings, and to illustrate the process by which the correctness of a reading may be approved or disapproved."
Perrine's claim that there is a correct and incorrect way to interpret poetry sounds ludicrous to me. How can he tell one what to take out of a poem? Is a poem not a work of art? Furthermore, he states himself that a writer "Should not be his own interpreter". If this is true, then that means it is not clear what the poem is actually about. Is one told how to look at a picture painted by an artist? The message or idea one takes away from a work of art, and poetry is indeed art in written form, is simply a personal reflection of the work. Perrine seems incorrect in his idea.
Yet Perrine's interpretation of Dickinson's untitled poem struck me. How did he perfectly decipher Dickinson's true meaning? Was it artistic insight or simply a practiced eye for poetry? I shared the interpretation his students had, and I was almost shamed by his words. His explanation as to why he saw things as he did made them perfectly clear and reasonable. What of Dickinson's vision in writing the poem? She had originally titled it "Sunset", so why is Perrine contradicting himself when he says that although a writer cannot be their own interpreter, their original intention of the poem is what we strive to see? I already had a heard enough time with my immature and untrained explanation of her poem. How can I possibly understand and interpret poems like Perrine?
No comments:
Post a Comment