Perrine's "The Nature of Proof in the Innterpretation of Poetry"

This article brought up some very good points. I am inclined to agree with Perrine due to his successful persuasion. I found that I had different interpretations than him on the poems; however, I feel that he was able to explain himself in a way that made him correct. I found the poem by Emily Dickinson to signify a field of flowers like Perrine's students. After reading his article, I am inclined to believe that his thoughts are correct and mine are not significant. I also lacked the knowledge to know that "The Night March" was not about an army, but rather the stars. Perrine's explanation was able to win me over again. My explanation lacked the detail and knowledge needed to properly decode the poem.
I agree with Perrine. I feel that there is an incorrect way to interpret a poem. If one lacks the knowledge or background information, one cannot properly interpret a poem. It is possible for some interpretations to be completely off and wrong. This is able to happen in the case that factual information or strong explanation is able to prove an interpretation unlikely. I especially agree with Perrine when describing "The Sick Rose." If one is able to simply describe the rose with certain characteristics and the worm with certain characteristics, then their interpretation will more than likely be correct. Perrine has convinced me that their are correct and incorrect ways of interpreting even the most abstract symbolism in poetry.