Perrine Poetry- Is there a wrong answer?

The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry
-Laurence Perrine

I agree with a large portion of this article- I have never believed that all interpretations of a poem are equally valid, simply because one interpretations matches and supports the details and symbolism in a poem more than any other.  I understand that a poet cannot interpret his own poem, because by doing so, "he limits its suggestibility," but I also believe that a poet should not suggest that any interpretation that suits a reader is a right one.  Context is a very important tool in the interpretation of a poem and must never be ignored.  Like in the example of the word "horse," one word can have different interpretations of detail, such as the type of horse, but in no context could "horse" be interpreted as a cow.  Most words in a poem are not as clear cut as that though.  In the untitled Dickinson poem, I personally interpreted it as a field or meadow of flowers.  Perrine quickly shows how this interpretation is incorrect.  Many of the words and details in the poem lean more toward the interpretation of a sunset than my personal view of the poem.  Once those details were pointed out and explained, I saw how a sunset was a better fit to the poem.

On the other hand, I do not believe the meadow interpretation is completely incorrect.  Same with the army interpretation of  the Melville poem.  I recognize that there a better and more correct interpretations of both poems, but I still think my views of the poems are logical ways to see the poem and are supported by most of the details in the poem.  The best interpretations of each poem support all the details (with some deep thought and explanation I might add) and contradict none of them.  But the other interpretations, the common and popular ones, are not necessarily wrong, they just aren't the very best interpretations.  The differing views are still within the area if meaning, and therefore, still plausible.   The poem talking about symbols actually makes more sense to me, because I saw the rose and worm representing a rose and worm, but also as a lady and her lover.  I agree that symbolic poems also have an area of meaning, and for me, that means there are multiple plausible interpretations, as long as, the author says, "the rose must always represent something beautiful or desirable or good. The worm must always be some kind of corrupting agent."  In essence, my belief is that if an interpretation stays within the area of meaning, it is to some degree, reasonable or acceptable.