Here is something we could probably agree on. Like Silliman says, you need to know what is being talked about. You need to experience or be aware of the semantic shifts in the poem which means there's no above sentence level inferences: you don't just read the poem assuming that the sentences don't join.
Likewise, with Prynne maybe the subject of the poem is incoherent, but you don't just assume that, you try to get it to make sense, and then see what you have.
Right?
Cheers,
Luke
