What purpose does my interpretation add to the validity of your
expression?
You asked if I (and others), could see a "story" in your writings,
which to me at least, one appears to be clearly evident. What do
you seek now? That I provide an interpretation? Surely that defeats
the purpose of the exercise, as my understanding of your expression
is irrelevant, in fact the _interpreted_ story I see would be entirely
different to what others see.
The writing itself is "the story," all that remains is for the
individual to _appreciate_ it, not understand, or interpret it.
What we must keep in mind in all of this, is that we are trying to
model the unreal, or more accurately asking the viewer to accept as
real, irrational relationships between rational objects.
In fact in the words of Max Ernst, what we are trying to do is "rebel
against the exterior distribution of objects."
Having said all of that, I guess our rational minds, through years of
conditioning, demands an interpretation of what we see or read. So I
will give you two interpretations of your imagery:
One:
[click here for image]
Two:
What the owl said masturbating with the words of Dylan Thomas,
could only be exemplified by the rhythmic beating of the mountain
against the angel's headless wings.
This naturally caused the priests of solace to shout with the
sound of clocks running backwards against the railway tracks of
time.
Of course the man digging the hole in the virgin's floorboards in
the doorway of the window, could have explained it thoroughly had
there been a handle on the shovel made of straw.
Lee.