Those who speak up on this board are much more likely to be teachers (or former teachers, or teacher wannabes) than traditional students, so Orwn's perspective can be a useful kick in the pants.
In cases of teacher-student duels over interpretation, the student is always at a disadvantage, and that never feels good. The teacher has power, has more knowledge of the other literature that might be speaking to the poem at hand, and has more practice in talking and thinking about literature right off the top of the head. To get past that, and to come out even in a debate like this, the student *really* has to have all his ducks in a row.
Another thing about such a discussion is that it's the teacher's job to get the student to explore additional possibilities. Since it can be tough, and take time, to twist your head around to an alternate view of a poem, the student who has just had a new view dumped on him can feel very off balance.
Does this directly answer the question on this thread? Well, no. But since so many of us have refused to answer it exactly as asked, I think we're agreeing that the question is rigged.
An alternate question might be: Can an interpretation be absolutely wrong, indefensible? What makes it so?
|