I believe that there are certain meanings to poems. The object obviously had a subject in mind when he wrote it, but because poems are so ambiguous, more than one interpretation can be correct. However, I do agree with Perrine that there is a "most" right answer to a poem's meaning. By the way Perrine explained how he knew that his answer was right, to me, seems to take the beauty out of the poem. He must have read it with a scholarly mind, searching for hints or clues that would lead him to what the author viewed when writing. But what about what the reader views? Poems should just be a window for the reader to look through and see what they want, not a picture for them to see what is already there. Some readers may notice the sea of daffodil as the golden color, or some might see the actual color, but both can connect with it.

But, the article does make good points which will enable me to view poems with a more scholarly mind. I will notice the small details that indicate a color, or something from history. The strategy which I read to be most helpful in this process was that symbols are complex, and they do seem to be endless, but they have a limit. There is always an answer which can be found. By reading a poem with a scholarly mind, I can increase my ability to analyze any kind of work. However, I do feel that taking the correct interpretation of the poem and trying to divulge it is a bad way to read a poem for growth outside of educating myself. I would much rather read a poem and think about how it connects to me, not how it connects to facts. I believe that of all literary artists, poets are the ones who want their readers to connect most to what they are writing.