As has been said, the best lyrics lend themselves to many interpretations -- this is part of their universality.The NYC-laced interpretations make sense and might in fact be closer to the inspiration for the piece, but RS is an artist and her work seems to be bigger than that by design.
Trying not to get too bogged down in specifics, but here's my flawed, perhaps firmly mistaken interpretation:: The song seems to be about a melancholy (maybe even sadder than melancholy) person longing for the past -- the "field below" was a familiar, everyday sight once upon a time, something the speaker took for granted, perhaps even to the point of finding it irksome -- and now it's gone for good. The attraction, of course, is to what is seen in retrospect as a "happier time." The past is of course irrevocable and all the more alluring because it's gone. Tthe annoyances and resentments of reality are gone with it. Maybe associated with a lost love the speaker also took for granted -- the speaker has moved on to the city and has ended the relationship but regrets it, or maybe the initial idea was to have the other person follow but their love didn't last. The memories are like "ancient bruises," meaning that she/he thinks the wounds should have healed by now, but they haven't. Yet the lonely speaker wants or at least feels compelled to remember, deciding that it's better to feel something than nothing, better to hurt than to be numb.
As has been said, the best lyrics lend themselves to many interpretations -- this is part of their universality.The NYC-laced interpretations make sense and might in fact be closer to the inspiration for the piece, but RS is an artist and her work seems to be bigger than that by design. Trying not to get too bogged down in specifics, but here's my flawed, perhaps firmly mistaken interpretation:: The song seems to be about a melancholy (maybe even sadder than melancholy) person longing for the past -- the "field below" was a familiar, everyday sight once upon a time, something the speaker took for granted, perhaps even to the point of finding it irksome -- and now it's gone for good. The attraction, of course, is to what is seen in retrospect as a "happier time." The past is of course irrevocable and all the more alluring because it's gone. Tthe annoyances and resentments of reality are gone with it. Maybe associated with a lost love the speaker also took for granted -- the speaker has moved on to the city and has ended the relationship but regrets it, or maybe the initial idea was to have the other person follow but their love didn't last. The memories are like "ancient bruises," meaning that she/he thinks the wounds should have healed by now, but they haven't. Yet the lonely speaker wants or at least feels compelled to remember, deciding that it's better to feel something than nothing, better to hurt than to be numb.