"That all interpretations of a poem are equally valid is a critical heresy." -Laurence Perrine

After reading “The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry,” an article by Laurence Perrine, I was able to take away from it specific information that will certainly help guide my study of poetry this year. When we were asked to interpret the untitled poem by Emily Dickinson, “The Sick Rose” by William Blake, and “An Army Corps on the March” by Walt Whitman and “The Night-March” by Herman Melville, I will admit that my interpretations were not what Perrine claims to be “correct.” The interpretation of Dickinson’s poem as a field of flowers made perfect sense to me, and I thought that that was the correct interpretation. However, after reading Perrine’s thoughts on the subject, I see his point in why the meadow description is, in fact, incorrect. Perrine claims and I now support that “a correct interpretation, if the poem is a successful one, must be able to account satisfactorily for any detail,” (Perrine, 1), yet the meadow interpretation does not explain every detail without assumption. If an interpreter leaves certain details unexplained and makes certain suppositions about a poem, they are, in a way, adding meaning to the work that the author did not intend to be present. Although I thought that the wharf in the poem described the garden perfectly well, I now see that the statement “the wharf is still” caused me to make assumptions. I explained that there was a wind in the garden that stopped, causing the flowers to stop swaying in the wind. However, Dickinson never mentions any detail that could represent wind, invalidating my description. If an interpreter leaves certain details unexplained and makes certain assumptions about a poem, they are, in a way, adding meaning to the work that the author did not intend to be present. Because of Perrine’s explanation on this topic, I can, in any poem I interpret this year, confirm that my understanding of the work does not contradict what is said in the poem and does not take any liberties by adding details or allowing for assumptions.

Furthermore, Perrine points out to the readers of his article that “even a symbol does not have unlimited meaning,” (Perrine, 5). Many written works contain a plethora of symbols that add an element of mystery to their story, yet these symbols do not always represent what the reader interprets them to signify. This year, I must make sure that my understanding of a symbol reflects both the organization in the way a poem is written and the characteristics of each symbol. In Blake’s poem about a rose and a worm, I cannot correctly assume that the rose represents darkness and the worm represents sunlight because of the characteristics and descriptions in the poem regarding each symbol. Blake seems to describe the rose as a helpless victim through phrases such as “does thy life destroy” and “he has found thy bed of crimson joy,” and darkness, a typically dangerous and terrifying character, creates the sense of a predator rather than a victim. Likewise, an assumption that the worm represents sunlight would also be incorrect because of the details surrounding the symbolic worm. Blake’s description of the worm as invisible, flying at night, and destructive does not allow for a pleasant interpretation, one such as sunlight. The worm rather must represent an evil, dark, or possessive entity in order to comply with the author’s portrayal. In the future as I interpret other poems, I can pay more attention to the symbols present and the details surrounding them to ensure that my interpretations are not far-fetched or inapplicable. This article explained to me that every symbol cannot mean anything the reader wishes it to, and I can make certain that my interpretations are justified.