02-18-2013, 03:37 AM
um well - I preferred the original - it was a bit easier to follow for me.
I found the first line somewhat thought provoking - and as such a bit ambiguos I suppose.
I got
some place where time is absent - but it is a small tight little place with not alot of room to move - so anything could startle the narrator out of that place.
for me I think the words 'pull' and 'binding' don't seem to go together. Pull suggests a force, Binding an attachment or device to attach something.
I think my objection is really subtle, cos attatchment can be a force, or exert a force in an emotional context.
So is time a force? I am not sure, I think it is a dimension and as such, might be bound, but does that mean it has a binding?
as I said I think my objection is a bit spurious - I think I got what you meant - and it is an interesting way to describe a timeless dreamy state of solitude.
all in all I think 'binds' might be better though.
else bloody marvellous read - thanks Leanne.
StalKeR
I found the first line somewhat thought provoking - and as such a bit ambiguos I suppose.
I got
some place where time is absent - but it is a small tight little place with not alot of room to move - so anything could startle the narrator out of that place.
for me I think the words 'pull' and 'binding' don't seem to go together. Pull suggests a force, Binding an attachment or device to attach something.
I think my objection is really subtle, cos attatchment can be a force, or exert a force in an emotional context.
So is time a force? I am not sure, I think it is a dimension and as such, might be bound, but does that mean it has a binding?
as I said I think my objection is a bit spurious - I think I got what you meant - and it is an interesting way to describe a timeless dreamy state of solitude.
all in all I think 'binds' might be better though.
else bloody marvellous read - thanks Leanne.
StalKeR