poems, how to?

I think Perrine’s approach to poems is a very efficient one.  His method seems very scientific.  He gives pretty strait forward rules for deciding the correct meaning of a poem. His ideas make sense.  Every poem has only one correct meaning.  I do disagree though some what.  Poems are like ink blots; they can be interpreted any way possible by different people.  Poems are often written for the enjoyment of others so if they find enjoyment out of interpreting the poem in a different way than it was intended than what is the problem with that. 

I found his explanations of the poems very satisfactory.  He explained in detail why they should be interpreted in the correct way.  He again sounds like a scientist or a lawyer because of his detailed explanations.  For the poem the Night-March it never occurred to me that it could be about the stars.  After he explains it, I can hardly picture it as anything ells.  At the end of his article he explains that symbols could be interpreted as a larger range of ideas.  I feel this kind of contradicts what he said earlier.  The poem of the Sick Rose is actually about a sick rose. This completely threw me of because I was thinking it was symbolic not literal, although the title does lend one to think of it literally.  Poems can easily become much more complex if parts of it are accidentally considered to be symbolic.