You Say 'Potato', I Say 'Tragic Love Story set in Medieval England'...

As I read through Perrine's article, I saw his argument as adressing two different audiences: the writer himself and the interpreter, the reader.

The Writer

Throughout the first page or so, Perrine asserts that it is the reader's responsibility to interpret poetry and there is no way for a writer to know exactly what he means to write. An inserted quote from E. A. Robinson helps to explain Perrine's thoughts, "A writer should not be his own interpreter." Perrine means to say that although the writer may have a specific concept in his mind throughout the writing process, it is not wise to admit this truth of his poetry. If a writer is to limit his work, he is cutting out the fun behind poetry: being able to see what one wants to see within the mere lines on the page. It diminishes the ability to find an alternate meaning or create an extra story that exceeds that which already exists. Sadly, Perrine also claims that this "above and beyond" is not tactful on the reader's behalf.

The Reader

For as much advice that Perrine offers to the author, he offers three times as much to the reader. From such basics as covering all the details and not letting our interpretations become too farfetched to the importance of diction in illustrating the setting of a poem, Perrine makes sure to cover his bases. By providing his "correct" analyses on several works we covered in class (coincidental, eh?), Perrine is able to show his audience how to correct apply the information which he has given to us.

As far as his basic principles are concerned, I agree with Perrine's stance on the interpretation of poetry; as long as it covers details without contradicting itself or becoming too abstract, an interpretation is valid. However, the statement that one evaluation is more correct than another bothers me. Poetry is art, and art is for the eye of the beholder. If we want to see something in a certain work, who is to say that we shouldn't? Yes, our own individual visions must have some grounding in reality, but why can't it stick its head to the clouds?