Critiquing version 3 
I got to agree, the poem was greatly strengthened with such a little edit. Of course, it helps that the original itself is splendid. There's something unique about the way you presented the piece... I've often seen birds portrayed in the context of freedom and thus aimlessness, but instead you've tied the bird across the span of two points, two places, two (contradictory) things holding man's nature apart and yet together... and there's something so touching and true about that.
It may be just me, but I don't feel you need the question marks in stanza 2, 3, and 4. To me a series of rhetorical questions just stop-start the poems flow and ultimately drags it. For me it would work well enough as answers that you then detract with a vehement no by stanza 5. Just my take though.
I got to agree, the poem was greatly strengthened with such a little edit. Of course, it helps that the original itself is splendid. There's something unique about the way you presented the piece... I've often seen birds portrayed in the context of freedom and thus aimlessness, but instead you've tied the bird across the span of two points, two places, two (contradictory) things holding man's nature apart and yet together... and there's something so touching and true about that.
It may be just me, but I don't feel you need the question marks in stanza 2, 3, and 4. To me a series of rhetorical questions just stop-start the poems flow and ultimately drags it. For me it would work well enough as answers that you then detract with a vehement no by stanza 5. Just my take though.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?