rattenmaus

I just noticed some lines in a Bob Dylan song - "A hard rain's a gonna fall". As soon as I got over the ridiculousness of dead pony girl, I felt like "---wait a moment I know who this verse is about.
Here's the lyrics:

Oh, who did you meet my blue-eyed son ?
Who did you meet, my darling young one ?
I met a young child beside a dead pony
I met a white man who walked a black dog
I met a young woman whose body was burning
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow
I met one man who was wounded in love
I met another man who was wounded in hatred
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.


My interpretation:
Death
Dream
Despair
Delirium
Desire
Destruction

:)

Dream is a bit forced, but the situation with the dog seems so pointless-but-maybe-it-has-a-hidden-meaning.

Edit: A year and a few years later: I'd reverse the positions of desire and despair.

I had a "discussion" with twistedchick, here. Because I misunderstood her last comment and thought I was allowed to leave one more comment, I did so, and she deleted it. That's why I post it here. So if you're interested, read the first part of the discussion in her journal. If you happen to agree with me, please don't jump to "my aid". Not that I think anybody who reads this would do so, but I don't want to start a flame war. I just want to make my point here, and I didn't have the feeling that twistedchick is actually interested in a discussion.

My final response:


"I don't have to know you, because I was not talking about you as a person, but about your entry and what you wrote in it. I make no assumptions about anything that isn't mentioned in your entry.
I also don't assume that you write rape fic or whatever, but I assume that you wouldn't warn, because of your lenghty rant against warnings. I also don't say that YOU should be ashamed, but that a person that doesn't warn because of rape etc should be. A case of "if it's not about you, it's not about you".

Again about the censorship - I tried to discuss this with you, with my first comment. You didn't reply, so I asked again. I still think you are wrong, and that labeling something accordingly is not the same as not being allowed to write or spread it. I don't understand why you don't want to engange in a discussion about this point, but by now I'm not surprised anymore - most of what you said to me was just that I'm wrong, with no real taking apart of my points. I still don't know why you think my example was bad, for example.

You're taking the easy way out here, just telling me that I may understand what you mean in 20 years, without once trying to make your point any clearer, ignoring my arguments/questions regarding this. Of course you're not obligated to discuss anything with me, but well, to be honest I'd have prefered it if you just told me so in your first comment, instead of just ignoring everything you don't want to reply to, or don't have an answer for, and just telling me "no" to everything else, without making a real case."


I fully understand that she deleted if after she warned me not to comment anymore - If I hadn't misunderstood her, I wouldn't have left another comment, but would have posted my reply directly here - while I respect her right to moderate any discussion in her journal, I still want to have things "out there". Also, I guess she gave people the "permission" to write about her entry in their own journals, and since an actual answer was all I wanted from the beginning, I don't feel threatened by her last sentence. ("If, however, *you choose to associate yourself* with anything that is written here and write to me to complain about it, you will be setting yourself up for whatever response I want to give you, and I doubt very much that you will like it unless you're excessively masochistic, in which case go ahead and have fun.")