I have done some research about this poem and I find the author 's story and background quite dark. But I 've done this because I was stuck on it, and wanted some other people 's thoughts and how they received the poem, after searching for a long time, I realised that there was no widely accepted single interpretation of the poem, (I had to do that because I felt guilty for reading other people 's interpretations, felt like cheating) eventually, I think I crafted my own interpretation, I also have some supporting evidence (or so I think) to back it up. I would like some feedback and see where you would fine loopholes in this interpretation of this poem. The first four lines are getting the reader to understand that "I" is a mirror, for it is silver and exact, having no preconceptions. This shows that it has a silver look, and "I" cannot be biased, which inanimate objects are, unbiased, since they can 't think, which could be a mirror since the title of the poem is Mirror, thus suggesting that the poem would most likely be connected to reflections or mirrors. This is to introduce the reader to "I". "The eye of a …show more content…
In stanza two, "I" is now a lake, "I" just says "Now I am a lake.". No need for explanation. Im going to jump to line two of stanza two. "I", the lake says that candles and the moon are lies. He is not the mirror, he is not silver, thus meaning the rest of the line follows the same rules. He calls them liars. "I" can call another a liar without disliking or loving, for "I" can have preconceptions. Candles and the moon is something bright, and what bright things represent are the good. The women comes back from the "lies" and looks at her reflection. She is distressed. "I" is important. Each morning, the woman would come when it 's bright, when the day is not dark, yet she sees darkness due to the fact that sh has to look down, and the sun is blocked by her, and even if the sun is not blocked, there is always a shadow on one 's face when looking in