click a star to vote
Mar 9th 2011!⃝Honestly this can be interpreted in more than one way, its not unusual for an author of a book, artist of a portrait, conductor for musical chart etc. to tie in multiple interpretations of similar context or emotion into one.
The one based on how he's referring to drugs, or a relationship to a drug I can see, but it doesn't seem like the full intent from my perspective.But the one about the government and relationship are the ones I agree too.
But after analyzing the verses, I feel like he's relating the Government in wartime from the view of the one in a million Privates/PFC's/Corporals in the military to a girl. The spell being the obligation he is to serve, and the binding emotions to a girl, 2nd verse going into implying the actions of nationalism as beautiful to the happiness of being in love, and how contradictory it is (going into the 3rd and 4th verse) going into how it will be at the sacrifice to his life ("death of me") to the emotional and mental depression and social death after the end of such a relationship which seemed to bring good cause (relates to how the US Gov't seems to bring the idea of "spreading democracy" for war, but at the cost of what? his life). And he knows he's only got so much time before his candle goes out (or to the end of the relationship) and he isn't going to let death (or the termination of love) catch up to him for any cause. and the giving up part meaning not to fall in love, not to re-enlist in war time, the addiction and binding being his contract for re-enlistment/the "high" he gets with being in love.
That's what I feel the interpretation is. May be wrong, may be over analyzed, may be biased because I am pro military (not pro war), but again, every interpretation is different based on each individuals prior experiences, knowledge and such.
