Perrine Blog Entry on "The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry"

I agree that poems do not have unlimited interpretations, but I do feel there is more than one possible interpretation for a poem. For instance, the first poem by Emily Dickinson I felt could have easily been about a field of flowers just as easily as it could have been about a sunset. I understand what Perrine's argument is saying, but that would involve having knowledge that not everyone has. How does one know what the "wharf" is without looking it up if they had not already known? If one sees the poem as representing a field of flowers, then why would they not guess that the wharf is the field or all of the flowers? Perrine mentions that the reader can make assumptions as to what the poem is about based on knowledge of the author, but if we do not know the authors life then the poem may be interpreted differently. If a poem with symbols in it can be interpreted in multiple ways, then why can we not interpret all poems this way? How does one know the difference between a poem that is literal versus a symbolic poem?

We say poems are a work of art, so comparing a poem to a painting would be plausible to solve this issue. For instance, when looking at a painting such as "Starry Night" by Vincent Van Gogh, someone may see it as a magnificent work of colors and shapes, while another may wonder how the painting is worth so much because there are not many colors and the painting is "blotchy". The interpretation is a matter of opinion, why would that not be the same for a poem which is a work of art? Perrine's formula for interpretation is that of a science hypothesis being proven. Science is not an art; science is based on facts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a poem is not based on facts; therefore, why should we interpret a work of art such that it is a science that does not make sense. If an interpretation makes sense it should be considered correct, but then the
question comes up with what makes sense and what interpretations are completely of the wall. If that is an issue, I would suggest having the interpreter explain why they interpreted the poem as they did. If they do not know why, then they probably just made it up. Teachers could set boundaries as to how they expect students to interpret poems which could limit possible interpretations.