we're not arguing, we're having a heated discussion...

I've always sorta debated this topic of whether or not poetry can have one interpretation back and forth in my head. I've always felt that poetry was more of an interpretive thing, sorta like the Bible: most of the stories aren't really supposed to be taken literally. in fact, if they are taken verbatim we get a pretty screwey world out of it. usually, I'm okay with having a few different insights and interpretations of things. I don't need a set answer for everything. in fact, a small part of the reason that I do well in school is that I can write an answer that isn't exactly right, but it's close enough that it can be interpreted as the correct response.

so, even though my language-oriented brain encourages me to think that things are more interpretive and not set-in-stone answers, I see the logic in the argument that Perrine makes. while obviously there are some pieces of poetry that maybe have no significance or relevance to modern times, there are still central themes that must be interpreted. poetry isn't written for no reason. it almost always has an underlying purpose and interpretation that is waiting to be discovered. obviously some writers are more cryptic about it than others, but Perrine makes a good point:

the best interpretation is the one that can be most closely applied without stretching or leaving out any important details.

but notice, it's the best interpretation, not necessarily THE interpretation. it's like those pesky standardized test questions that say "choose the MOST CORRECT option". those are almost always the most difficult to get right because of the lack of definitive knowledge that yes, this answer is THE answer, and none of the rest could work. it's the same with interpreting poetry. I do agree with Perrine in that there is a way to correctly apply an interpretation without a lot of stretching and really having to squint to see how it works. I understand that perfectly. now, whether or not I could actually do it myself, I'm not sure. given his argument and proof, I see that there is a correct application, but I'm still not sure that there's only ONE interpretation. he hasn't gotten me convinced on that one yet.