"The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry"

Poetry has always been a frustrating subject for me. A large part of this is due to the ambiguity poetry leaves for the reader. However, with Perrine's guidelines it appears there a very few ways one poem can be interpreted. According to Perrine, the criteria for interpretation of a poem is this; (1) the interpretation must account for every detail of the poem and (2) if there is still more then one interpretation then the one that has the fewest assumptions is correct. I can see good points and bad points to this theory. Later in the article, Perrine demonstrates his theory by interpreting a poem by Emily Dickinson. When I first read the poem I interpreted it in the way Perrine said most of his students had; however, he goes on to use his theory to show how this interpretation is in fact false. Using his method did work out in this case and his interpretation was much more interesting and possibly more accurate.
While Perrine's method did work fairly well, I still found a few debatable flaws. I've always felt that English teachers and readers in general often over analyze a reading. Yes, there are some very symbolic and deep works of literature but maybe the author was just trying to say something simple. Maybe Emily Dickinson wanted her poems to be ambiguous so that everyone would have a different interpretation or maybe she was describing flowers, or maybe Perrine is right and she was describing a sunset. this is where poetry becomes confusing for me. In my opinion, poetry is meant to be left to interpretation. The author wants you to imagine your own interpretation and feel your own feelings.