Perrine Argues Poetry

"The poet is eager to be understood."

I must admit, Laurence Perrine makes a fantastic arguement. At the beginning of his essay, I believed that every poem has 100 different interpretations, and while some may seem outlandish, they are all right. Now, however, I see why he believed that for any given poem there is a correct and incorrect reading. I don't necessarily completely agree, but I understand his arguement.

I now agree that some interpretations can be disproved, and that interpretations of symbols must fall within a certain area. I believe, however, that this all goes back to what the author wrote the poem to be about. And I myself believe that poetry is mainly worth reading BECAUSE the reader and the writer may read the poem and see different things. I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, a poem may be about something particular. But is poetry really about finding the right meaning, or is it about finding personal meaning and emotion in different works? I believe that people read poetry to feel something, not to hear a story or learn about the past as they may with prose literature.

From a literature professor's standpoint, the arguement is solid. But if I can't interpret poety myself and therefore express my creativity in it, I personally don't see the point in reading it at all.