Altogether, I see Perrine's point of view and can honestly say that his approach is very convincing and persuasive. With this being said, I still do not agree with the idea that poetry has a specific meaning and interpretation behind the words. I believe that writing is an art form that can be manipulated and shaped into any meaning possible. Poetry especially has these capabilities. Every little detail of a poem can completely change the meaning of a poem, whether it is the structure, or a minor detail, or the mood. Poetry is flexible in it's meaning, and the fact that every individual's interpretation is inconsistent is a perfect example. Besides, why does there even have to be a "correct" meaning behind a poem? What does it matter? I enjoy different points of view when it comes to subjects like poetry, art, etc. Every person thinks differently, which is the beauty behind interpreting poetry.
Even though I did not agree with Perrine, there were still points he made that I found to be interesting and logical. I like how he compared judging and interpreting a poem to a scientific hypothesis. Even though the two are not linked in any way possible because science is fact and poetry is opinion, I still find the comparison amusing. The comment, although slightly flawed, has some logic behind it, and I liked the attempt. I also liked the idea of the Emily Dickinson poem being about a "garden", although he does not agree with this interpretation. I found this interpretation be very beautiful and unique. I never thought of that poem in such a way, and I wish I could view poems in such a way. Perrine's ability to interpret poems in such a way challenges me to observe the little details of poems. As far as the poetry in class goes, I hope to notice similar aspects of poems that Perrine observes.
No comments:
Post a Comment