Perrine Blog

"These two criteria, I ask you to notice, are not different from those we bring to the judgment of a new scientific hypothesis."

     I like the analogy that he draws to the scientific hypothesis, as it emphasizes the importance of not arbitrarily assigning meaning to a poem.  I have to admit that I am not partial to poetry, as it is difficult for me to decipher the meaning of a poem.  I guess this article provided some relief in that it claims that poetry is not an ambiguous mess of varying interpretations.  Perrine calls this idea of equally valid interpretations heresy.  While maybe that is a harsh word, I do agree.  I think a writer writes for one specific meaning.  It also appears sort of lazy to me to quickly judge meaning with out critically considering the contents of a poem. 
    I find his methods helpful.  They seem to make sense.  Still though, picking the simplest, most plausible explanation after examining the facts can still be open for interpretation.  What one sees as the best explanation may only seem so because they are limited to only their point of view.  I think it requires discussion to weed out less accurate interpretations and to locate the best possible explanation. Unrelated, I like when Perrine said that the best interpretations rely on the fewest assumptions not grounded in the poem.  I never have pondered that method.  I don't usually tally up the assumptions I am making when I read poetry, which is not very often.