"The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry"

     In Perrine's, "The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry," he states many important facts and views on how to look at poetry.  He suggests many methods and statements on how to go about analyzing poetry; most I agreed with, a few I took a different stance.  I agreed with the statement that said, "There are no correct or incorrect readings: there are only readings which differ more or less widely from a statistical norm.  However, Perrine contradicts himself throughout the writing.  He gives reasons some opinions for why some interpretations would be incorrect.  This confused me a little bit because he is saying two different things.  Perrine also says many interesting things that I agreed with.  "No poet, however, likes to be caught in the predicament of having to explain his own poems."  He is stating that poets do not want to explain their poems.  The write their poems in a certain way, so others would analyze and have their own interpretations of the poem.
     I also found it very interesting that all the poems Perrine addressed, we read in class.  By reading his interpretations, I understood more about what the poem is really about.  I agreed and understood the analyzations made by Perrine referring to these poems.  Referring to the untitled poem by Emily Dickinson, I felt that the ships and seas were being referred to as flowers, so Dickinson was describing a garden.  However, Perrine suggests many good reasons for why it is describing a sunset.  He says, "Daffodil' would normally be plural if it referred to flowers rather than to color: why would not the poet say "On a sea if daffodils?"  For some reason, this statement convinced me the most that the poem was being compared to a sunset.  This reading was very helpful and interesting!