I love your passion, Spamlet. I have enjoyed your earnest lyrical analysis through the years, so I like this debate with you. I hope I'm not annoying you or the other readers because over-analysis can sometimes spoil a great thing.
I think there can be multiple interpretations of everything, depending on one's frame of reference. I see that you have a very romanticized interpretation and I actually would prefer your lens. I'd like to play devil's advocate, though, and present some alternate interpretations, based on my study of human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamlet
Except that it's far more than mere comfort. The eyes are our windows to the soul and in hers he sees divine purity. By evoking the Christ child, he is describing actual deliverance ("where there is no danger") and salvation ("where love has eyes, it is not blind"). His life is saved, he is reborn and she has the power to heal. Anything but commonplace.
|
This is a very lofty analysis and could be his intention. Alternately, although he says "eyes," a cynic could read "thighs." A manger could also be interpreted as one's animalistic nature. In a physical relationship there is no "emotional" danger, which feels safer. It is a common excuse by those who stray from their devotion. What I meant by common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamlet
As for the "fun" part. It's not about frivolity or a flippancy. You've taken it so out of context to the point where the meaning has been completely lost. The full thought is:
"I've never been with anyone/ in the way I've been with you/ but if love is not for fun/ then it's doomed/ 'cause water races/water races down/ the water falls/ water races/ water races down/ the waterfall".
In addition to the unwavering devotion of the verses, these first two lines re-establish that seriousness. This relationship is unlike anything he's ever had. Although part of that is because it's one-sided since she is afraid to take the chance with him. So he acknowledges that it will never work if they are not willing to ride the roller coaster, to bravely navigate the raging rapids. To survive the ups and downs and terrifying twists. To risk going on the adventure of a life spent together.
He's not saying "just" (and doesn't use that word in the song). The "for" might as well have been "also".
|
It is often said that once you add "...but," you negate the first part of the sentence. So in context, the "but" reads as flippant and trivializes the devotion of the first part. I like what Wheels said about water and waterfall being symbolic of time and life. As time passes through life, if you let the need for fun negate every other aspect of the relationship, it is surely doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamlet
The deepest love must consist of an equal balance of loyalty and joy. Who could ever convincingly argue that the two sides of that coin aren't both essential for true and lasting shared happiness?
|
I agree with you on this part and do not think this can be debated. I think the lyrics of this song indicate someone who struggles with that balance.
I think this is a great song where he is revealing his internal conflict. It reveals his love/resentment, his passiveness/aggression, his struggle to find the right words... He knows he messed up, but he hasn't let go of his anger. Everything he says could be interpreted as such:
1) Does "no matter how far/well, i can go before you" mean he's leading for her to follow, establishing dominance and superiority?
2) Does "and if ever you need someone/well, not that you need helping/but if ever you want someone/know that i am willing" mean that he knows he is implying that she needs him, but knows he shouldn't say it?
3) Does "i can feed this real slow/if it’s a lot to swallow" mean he's going to shove his need to make amends down her throat, even though she's not ready? Does the fact that it's slow make it more palatable?
4) Does "if you want me to let this go/well, i’m more than willing" mean I'll give up, but in a passive/aggressive way?
It's a work of art because it is so complex!