Overall, I found the Mad Libs exercise really entertaining; by changing eight words in the poem, the program was able to generate several extremely humorous results (ranging from “I have upset the serfs that were in the slingshot” to “I have improved the men that were in the shampoo”). Based on the way it seemed most dramatically changed—and the words that made each result so amusing—I think the words that now stand out the most are “eaten,” “plums,” and “saving.” The three terms describe the main subject of the poem and the two potential actions that are being performed upon it, and so switching them with random words from the dictionary completely redirects the point of the poem.

I think this kind of tool for deformance would only work efficiently with shorter poems like “This is Just to Say,” due to its focus on individual words and the way a small alteration can alter the entire piece. In general, it can be helpful in causing the user to view a poem in a different way with emphasis on specific parts of the poem—based on how much deforming those parts changes the way they interpret it. That being said, while I find deformance as a whole to be a really interesting concept (and I will always be supportive of anything that annoys pretentious academics), I’m still a bit skeptical of taking it seriously as a form of thorough interpretation.