I noticed in the words sunset and screens the detail of the letter s, again with Dickinson’s unique handwriting, is turned essentially sideways, even more so than many of the other letters. What pulled me towards this was the idea that the words “sunset” and “screens”, enhance each other within the text, and how this detail serves as an emphasizer. Depending on how we’re interpreting the word screens here, we can delve into two different analyses. The first way would be the verb “screens” as in to “check or investigate” something, to make sure it is what its supposed to be or that it meets certain requirements. In this way it works tandem with the word “reveals”. First, the sunset, as a being or entity doing the screening and revealing, suggests the idea that at dusk all is known. As the sun transitions from day to night we are at our most vulnerable and open. The sun screens us, perhaps for character flaws or positive traits, and then reveals to us these flaws or special qualities. We are laid bare in the sunset. This idea of clarity during the sunset is somewhat subversive, because right after the sunset it becomes dark, so how can what we see become enhanced in the darkness? I offer up the explanation that once the sun performs its screening and we are given subsequent revelation, our views of ourselves and others are enhanced. We are offered more spiritual or emotional clarity even though we are in the darkness and physical qualities or traits become more obscured after sunset. Then menaces of amethyst takes on a more gentle tone, the aggression of “menaces” is tempered by the warm, etherial tone of the rest of the poem. Amethyst, a beautiful gemstone, could not possibly be menacing! It is merely a word utilized because of the lovely assonance when paired with amethyst, and the following alliteration within “moats” and “mystery”. Moats of mystery becomes exciting, alluring, and peaks the readers curiosity just as the piece comes to its conclusion. I feel as if I’m floating along on small waves of crescendo as I read each sentence of the piece through this lens. The second way to interpret the word screens is that it is meant as a barrier or shield. this would give us sort of the opposite interpretations as reading one, that the sunset and subsequent darkness shield us and protects us from the bad, revealing only the good, enhancing what we see in the way that it filters out all of the negative. Here menaces of amethyst become the secrets or the evil which the sunset has screened and hidden; these menaces lurk in the shadows, hiding within “moats of mystery”. This helps to assuage the curiosity of the reader in the final moments of the poem, because perhaps these moats of mystery are best left alone. This gives a more haunting and cautionary tone to the poem: it suggests that the reader not look closely at problems or flaws hidden in the night. Wow! That was a hefty analysis, and I wasn’t really expecting it. What drew me originally to the letter is is the way it connects at the bottom, almost as though it’s an infinity sign. This provides a sense of permanence, longevity, or repetitiveness to the screening action. I didn’t realize that I would discover the different interpretations of the word “screen” to be a lynchpin in analyzing the whole poem, but it seems “screen” may very well be the turn of this piece, depending on how it is read. And how can we tie this into Sontag? The idea I pluck from Sontag’s “Against Interpretation” and then refute with my previous analysis is that works of art which are “abstract” actively resist interpretation by contemporaries- on the contrary! I find that abstract work perhaps allows the most room for interpretation. If we believe interpretation to be inherently subjective, then abstract art provides the most flexibility within the individual art piece. As I’ve just illustrated, because of the abstract wording of Dickinson’s text, there exist at least two separate interpretations of the meaning of the poem. I’m sure another analytical thinker could come up with a third creative interpretation, and perhaps someone else could offer up a fourth. I do agree that parodying art tuns actively away from interpretations through the delegitimization of the specific art form, but I think that abstract art allows actually for heightened opportunity of interpretation. I do think, also, that Sontag has a point: sometimes, we can just let art be art. I think the very first recitation of this poem, where the assignment consisted of quick memorization and familiarization with the text but asked us to think do deeper than “which phrase was tricky to recall” and “which phrase was enjoyable to speak aloud” fits in with Sontag’s demand “to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all”. In doing this, Sontag notes, we fulfill our duty of being able to see more, hear more, and feel more. Isn’t that, after all, what artists are trying to encourage all along?