I found most of what Perrine said in "The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry" to be true. Knowing these things will make me a better reader and better author. Having said that, there were a few pieces of the work that I did not agree with. First, he says that all interpretations of a poem are not equally valid. Secondly, he states that there is only one "right answer." I disagreed at first with that because the interpretation from the reading should depend on the reader. And if different readers come up with different variations of meanings, they should be valid. But then it could be said that a crazy person who thinks Shakespeare is talking about Al Quaida still has a valid interpretation, so he does have a point. The main idea is that the audience can have different perceptions of a poem, and all are correct if they are within a certain boundary.
The next area that I thought was a bit farfetched was when Perrine addressed the "right" meaning of the Melville poem. First, I believed that the text, seemingly about an army marching at night, is actually about the stars, not war. The thing that I found completely outlandish was when he says, "As I read it, the poem poses the question of the existence of God." I just sat there and thought, "Is this guy for real?" It's a poem about twinkling things. Anyways, because he explained that statement afterwards with sufficient logic, it doesn't sound too far-out. I still don't understand how people can pick up deep content like that from a short poem. I also wonder why some authors put so many symbols and metaphors in their works only to realize that no one but other authors, like Perrine, understands them. If the common man can't understand their writing, or interpret the wrong meaning from it, why do they make it so complex? I do think believe, though, that Perrine's logic as to how to interpret the words as something more (especially this example because without explanation it would sound completely absurd) will help me in the future to be a more perceptive reader and to be more open to possible meanings.
The next area that I thought was a bit farfetched was when Perrine addressed the "right" meaning of the Melville poem. First, I believed that the text, seemingly about an army marching at night, is actually about the stars, not war. The thing that I found completely outlandish was when he says, "As I read it, the poem poses the question of the existence of God." I just sat there and thought, "Is this guy for real?" It's a poem about twinkling things. Anyways, because he explained that statement afterwards with sufficient logic, it doesn't sound too far-out. I still don't understand how people can pick up deep content like that from a short poem. I also wonder why some authors put so many symbols and metaphors in their works only to realize that no one but other authors, like Perrine, understands them. If the common man can't understand their writing, or interpret the wrong meaning from it, why do they make it so complex? I do think believe, though, that Perrine's logic as to how to interpret the words as something more (especially this example because without explanation it would sound completely absurd) will help me in the future to be a more perceptive reader and to be more open to possible meanings.
No comments:
Post a Comment