Perrine Blog Post

"A writer should not be his own interpreter."
This quote by E. A. Robinson stuck out the most to me within the packet and initially made me feel that my previous opinion that all poems are open to all interpretations was correct. In reading the paper, I have not changed that view, but have edited my criteria a bit. I understood and liked the concept that an interpretation must be well explained and uncontradictory. I believe that ideas can be "far-fetched" and also correct though. Because the creativity used to construct the poetry was unbounded, I believe that the creativity used to interpret the poetry should not be restricted either. Much like the article we read which explained that novels should be complicated to read and understand because they were complicated to write, I think the same rules apply to the reading of poetry. There are no "wrong" answers, but there are interpretations that are more accepted because they are more logical to the majority of people.

A mostly logical case can be made for all pieces of poetry. And this, I view as the beauty of creative expression in writing. A single combination of words and lines can mean so many different things to various different people. Poetry gives the freedom to explore our interpretations of a piece and why we feel a certain way about a poem based on life experience, current situation, or the influence of a thousand other factors. While poetry analysts need a few great answers for the capabilities to draw general conclusions, poetry is open to the world for interpretation. In my mind, reading poetry is like prayer. Each person has their own style. There are forms that are more accepted within the realms of society, but in the privateness of their own thoughts, people can draw whichever conclusions or inspirations from the written words of others.