Devolution

[Mark Cecil]

Devolution first edit

some SAY that we NEED a REvoLUtion
POWer FOUND down the BARrel OF a GUN
DEATH by the DROP of a GUILLoTINE's BLADE
when the MOB MASSacres THOSE aBOVE them
TAKing their SEATS of POWer WITHout CHANGE
for THEY are CLONES of their FORmer MASters
and THEY are coRRUPtible IN their REIGN
BEASTS deVOURing THOSE beCAUSE they deVOUR
for CLENCHED KNUCKles ALways RAISE Other ONES

capitals are stressed, minuscules unstressed. i didn't even know this was supposed to have meter until i read the feedback. this is a rough reading, but not so rough that most of its guesses are wrong, and even with some corrections this is still far from IP, or perhaps even regular meter.

another, perhaps bigger problem is that everything's sort of clunky -- there aren't really sentences here, the theme (religion!) doesn't seem to mesh with the style, and ultimately the language contains neither vividness nor novelty enough that the style could even justify itself on its own. not only should you punctuate, but i think you should also revise -- a lot. "when the mob massacres those above them..." is really a big problem -- so when the mob massacres the elite, some say that we need a revolution, or is that continuing from the speaker's definition of revolution as "power found down the barrel of a gun / death by the drop of a Guillotine's blade"? and the two "for..." lines there: without punctuation or a clear subject-verb structure, they're really clunky in a way that i can't really say (perhaps it's also because the first for continues the whole sentence, while the last one introduces an aphorism that to me makes a laughable sort of sense, but the way the lines are structured, they both seem to elaborate on the same thought).

Some say that we need a revolution
power found down the barrel of a gun
death by the drop of a Guillotine’s blade
when the mob massacres those above them
taking their seats of power without change
for they are clones of their former masters
and they are corruptible in their reign
beasts devouring those because they devour
for clenched knuckles always raise other ones

Some say that power needs an evolution
a calm and steady growth in our reason
giving birth to the great babe of science
who once born, soon grew into a strong man

*and what makes the noted lack of punctuation even more frustrating is that you punctuate here, and imperfectly too (I believe it should be "who, once born,... "

whose machines promised to make life easy
but only the technopriests grew in wealth

http://www.humanoids.com/album/131
not very related, but yeah, that's the first thing that came into my mind. yeah, the technopriests are, for the most part, villains in that story too. i vastly prefer Jodorowsky's comics preceding that, particularly The Incal and The Metabarons -- i can't really say anything about the weirdness of The Incal other than it's a classic, and The Metabarons....The Metabarons was pure opera (although if you don't like seeing, say, a baby having its head blown off because it was the son of a man and his wife's body as possessed by his mother's soul, then yeah, the presentation may not be for you. the art of everything's absolutely gorgeous, though)

while the flock was left to suffer greatly
technology’s hand made ours worthless
its five fingers snathched our dear living wage

first: snatched. second, Luddite -- that worthlessness is only for the old guard's hand (or rather, one can't really say it's a blanket bad -- on the one hand, unemployment (although the increasing complexity of both machines and the society they work in, as well as the current lack of truly capable AI, means more jobs are ultimately needed, I'm guessing), but on the other hand, the freedom to pursue more uplifting pursuits, such as making video games and writing poetry), and at risk of conflating the speaker with the author, without technology i wouldn't be reading this piece. 

No we need the devolution of power

....hmmm. Isn't it ironic that the speaker complains about technology snatching his dear living wage (in a way that, in its vagueness, implies less the alienation of modern society, more the Luddite fashion I earlier complained about), then suddenly turns to God for wealth?

God’s power given down out of his palm
to his sinful, weak and helpless creatures

at yet another risk, this time of being a stickler, this needs a good deal of clarification. "God's power given...to [the] sinful" sounds a lot less like a message of reconciliation, and a lot more like God's not a particularly discerning fellow....that is to say, i thought our God was a Holy God?

that said, i did actually get the message here. still, i'd rather something other than God's power be commended here, or perhaps the structure be cleared up a bit -- i can stand some theological weirdness in, say, a Gospel-Rap song, but not in something written, unless you don't actually prescribe to the religion i prescribe to....

who may grovel in the mud for power
but if they crawl to the foot of the cross
they can truly find it there in Jesus

....well, "Jesus", you do seem to. i suppose why "power" works in Spirituals and not here is that Spirituals set the tone enough, both in music and in simple language, such that what they ask from God is his power to overcome their sin and suffering, and not, especially with the more material-seeming message of the earlier stanzas, his power in general.

who in love gives them crowns to reign with him
in his incorruptible reign of grace
inaugurated at mount calvary

but yeah, i repeat that issue of sinners being given power by God just like that, instead of being given the power to overcome their sins and the world. also, everyone else's issue that the turn to God here isn't supported enough. S1 is all "some say that we need a revolution when democracy does its job" (oh yeah, that's another read from the rather clunky structure), S2 is all "some say that we need for power to be applied more reasonably, even though it's an evil failure" (with my additional note on that being that a lot of the great thinkers were ardent faithful, since they saw that to understand God's creation is to appreciate it (what science is), and that to create technology to ease man's material suffering is an extension of that whole "love thy neighbor" thing (what technology is ---- when applied right. again, it's far sketchier than this piece seems to imply), and lastly it's all "nope to all that, turn to God instead", as if to act upon the world is not something our Lord endorsed. it's not nearly nuanced enough nor crazy enough to really work ---- i would think a more effective turn to the polemical would be to elaborate on how revolutions and science are better when applied responsibly (religiously), or how the great revolution and the great evolution happened with Jesus's annunciation-->ascension (with the addition of a sort of "justify[ing] the ways of God to man"], or even the exact same message, but with more thematic consistency (again, the fact that the person of Jesus incarnated into a fullman-fullGod sort of being was one hell of a revolution, and the evolution of man's matter-and-idea-based reason pales in comparison to that of the evolution of his soul) and a good deal more vividness in the language (perhaps discuss in different terms the pointlessness of revolution (because right now the pointlessness the piece discusses reads less "history is a circle", more "every desperate soul who voted the idiot candidate is an idiot asshole not deserving of his rights"), and emphasize, instead of the Luddite concept of smaller wages, the alienation brought about by things like the internet, or the environmental destruction brought about by things like plastics, or the general destruction brought about by things like drones, or even the overpopulation brought about by things like vaccines....).*

yet another semi-tangential note: as far as I know, the French Revolution was way less of a blanket failure as it seemed to be. yes, it led to the Reign of Terror, and ultimately France returned to monarchy for a bit, but it rattled the thought sphere of the world enough to evoke more democratic change, if not at the time then at the unrest that later (in some cases, much later) followed. and sure, violence breeds more violence, but it's more a violence inherent in the people than anything -- for was it not the violence of war that starved the people of France, or established its pampered lords?

 You've given a lot to think about.  I've provided a second edit which is closer to iambic pentameter than the previous edit but in regards to the issues you've raised over the content like clunkiness, punctuation and the final stanza I'll need more time to address this but hopefully in the mean time the second edit will do.