Perrine's "The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry," had many points about poetry interpretations that I completely agree with. I agreed with Perrine's criteria for judging if an interpretation of a poem was valid or not. I believe that a poem cannot contradict itself in any way or it would become confusing to understand. Also, the interpretation has to be somewhat reasonable and not something that you would read and be like, "That's way wrong." I think that this just makes explanations/interpretations short, sweet, and to the point. Something else I agree with in Perrine's essay, is her symbols explanation. I believe that all symbols, although they could have many meanings, narrow down due to word choice and such. It is pretty clear that a purple flower can't stand for an ugly monkey (that'd be bizarre). I believe that Perrine was right when she insinuated that although an interpretation can sound right, it might be completely wrong.
There were things mentioned that I could relate to because of my recent experiences interpreting poems. When I read a poem, I would always think deep about what it could mean, never literally. Perrine mentions that in poetry, context may function to expand meaning as well as to limit it. This goes along with my earlier comment about being able to find meaning to something but that something can't be everything. I know that interpreting poems can be difficult because of this narrow path we can take to get the correct meaning of it, but I enjoy poems. I think that the way Perrine described things she made it clear that although we aren't always right about what poems really mean, we can be somewhat close. I know I sure was on the Emily Dickinson poem (not exactly everything though). I think that I will be able to find it a little easier to interpret poems now with Perrine's criteria and her points of what makes a right guess of what the meaning to a poem can be. I will enjoy AP Lit! YAY!
No comments:
Post a Comment