Saying "no interpretations of poetry are wrong" is the equivalent of saying "there are no stupid questions." Both declarations have good intentions; however, just like questions, there are interpretations of poetry that can be completely out of line. "An area of meaning" exists that cancels out certain extraneous interpretations. Still, I find it challenging to understand a poem in a symbolic mindset while at the same time getting the idea to "satisfactorily fit any detail." For example, the daffodil in Dickinson's poem. One must first find what the daffodil must symbolize and then apply that to make it fit with all the other details of the poem. Fortunately, Perrine offers helpful tips in understanding poetry. Never before had I considered extrapolating similar descriptive words in a poem to help create an idea like Perrine does with Melville's "The Night-March". This skill will be extremely useful in the comprehension of poetry. Seeing his word clues made the symbolism obvious. However, when paired with Whitman's "An Army Corps on the March", "The Night-March" is difficult to be seen in this symbolic light as Whitman's poem is purely descriptive.
Overall, I prefer Blake's "The Sick Rose" because it does not force the mind to think inside of a box. The rose and worm can only symbolize certain ideas; this is true. However, these ideas can be generalized and applied to newer and different situations. For example, one could see the rose as symbolizing nature and the worm as humanity. Therefore, one could conclude that humanity is destroying nature by not recycling and wasting natural resources which endanger the beauty of nature in the world. In Dickinson's, Whitman's, and Melville's poems, one cannot utilize their mind in such a way; one must develop a skill of interpretation that takes time to learn and apply. In poetry, there are correct interpretations. There is not solely one, and they are not all right.
