Perrine article

           As I read this article by Perrine, I realized what I already knew. My interpretations of the poems differed drastically from what the poets tried to interpose into my mind. I totally missed the Whitman’s piece about the stars. Although in retrospect, my mind acknowledges the poem’s significance, and it seems to be smacking me in the face. I realized two intertwined concepts in every single poem listed along with Whitman’s: detail and word choice. They play a key role in the interpretations. For example, Whitman’s poem, coupled with Melville’s, forces the reader to think predominately of actual war. However, they are completely different through their detail. Melville explains actual war: a loud, confused battle; whereas, Whitman describes the army with their “clarions mute”. This striking characteristic should have lead to alarms because an army could not be mute; there must be some other significance.  

            Always having trouble with poetry, I find Perrine’s article insightful and helpful. He states plethora things to consider while reading poetry. Firstly, if all of the details do not fit an image or brings in assumptions, the significance created is not the proper meaning. That helps me a lot. I usually assumed details in each poem, such as, the wind in Dickinson’s. Secondly, Perrine maintains that sometimes poetry has one meaning like for Dickinson or many like for Blake. When symbols are utilized, the significance broadens. There are still some definite lines that cannot be crossed, but there is room for movement. In Dickinson’s piece, restricted by the word choice, the image viewed is that of clouds at sunset because all the puzzle pieces fit. Conversely, Blake ambiguously describes a rose and worm. They mean so many concepts, but the worm is always bad and the rose signifies a good idea.