This "essay" or whatever it is really got on my nerves. There is no "correct" interpretation of poetry or any literary work for that matter. The author may intend a certain meaning, but that doesn't make it correct. That interpretation simply becomes one notion derived from a work. Interpretation is about the meaning a work has for the reader, and different readers may have different interpretations. Reading the article just made my view of poetry stronger: it's not meant to have one interpretation. In fact, the true genius of an author or poet is the ability to create multiple meanings in a work. By doing so, the author makes the work appealing to a larger audience.
My biggest problem is with Perrine's argument that a proof has to fit every detail in a poem. If a reader believes his or her explanation to be accurate, said reader will make the details fit the explanation for himself or herself. Perrine seems to believe that his explanation is always right. For him, it may be the best explanation, but I really think that The Sick Rose uses the rose as a symbol for a woman. His theory or parameters cannot tell me I'm wrong because many people would agree that I am correct. And even if others didn't agree, I interpreted the poem that way, so that's the correct interpretation for me. What if the woman was ugly and mean and didn't represent something "beautiful or desirable or good"? The secret lover which I believe the worm to be could love her anyway. Her beauty or desirability has nothing to do with it.
"What if the woman was ugly and mean and didn't represent something "beautiful or desirable or good"?"
ReplyDeleteIs there anything in the poem to suggest this? If you bring in hypotheticals, then you're no longer analyzing the poem.
I don't think you're as far off from what Perrine is saying as you think. Would you accept someone who said the rose represented a furniture designer? or a dragon? or an oil rig?