01-12-2017, 11:54 AM
Already lots said on this now- but you seem to be taking mixed opinions on board and improving the piece... so thought I'd give a few final thoughts hoping it might inspire you to improve something here or there:
First two stanzas improved no end in the edit, a smoother and more effective read. The debate on tech and revolution and their effects could go on, but no need, as your poem suggests your opinions on the matter and leaves the reader thinking in regards to both issues/thoughts- which is a success in itself.
The third stanza- I feel you lose the fluency of the first two. Is this intended? Your documented desire to use and abuse meter seems to go out of the window here. From the third line of this stanza (God's power...) to the 6th (they can...) I lose the ease with which I enjoyed reading all lines previous,read the lines aloud and perhaps you'll see what I mean.
I feel, to mirror your divine conclusion, this final stanza should perhaps be the smoothest and most beautifully written of the three. Not the most broken.
At risk of being repetitive, this final stanza being stronger will add worth to what I still think is a very weak case for God. Rivernotch pretty much hit all of my nails on the head in his/her previous lengthy post about this, so I'll summarise.
I said in my previous post, I really am being as objective as possible- but you do not present your belief with the strength it merits, or with the strength to force the reader into thought. I still feel that the current combination of the weakest stanza in terms of writing (as the third one to me clearly is) and the generic and obviously put religious conclusion that preaches obvious notions rather than provokes thought, do not sufficiently follow your well written ideasin the first two stanzas.
I want to be made to think, to unavoidably assess the case for God. Currently it falls short of that, and I feel from your responses, and from how near this piece is to being effective, you are aiming and want that effect on your reader.
First two stanzas improved no end in the edit, a smoother and more effective read. The debate on tech and revolution and their effects could go on, but no need, as your poem suggests your opinions on the matter and leaves the reader thinking in regards to both issues/thoughts- which is a success in itself.
The third stanza- I feel you lose the fluency of the first two. Is this intended? Your documented desire to use and abuse meter seems to go out of the window here. From the third line of this stanza (God's power...) to the 6th (they can...) I lose the ease with which I enjoyed reading all lines previous,read the lines aloud and perhaps you'll see what I mean.
I feel, to mirror your divine conclusion, this final stanza should perhaps be the smoothest and most beautifully written of the three. Not the most broken.
At risk of being repetitive, this final stanza being stronger will add worth to what I still think is a very weak case for God. Rivernotch pretty much hit all of my nails on the head in his/her previous lengthy post about this, so I'll summarise.
I said in my previous post, I really am being as objective as possible- but you do not present your belief with the strength it merits, or with the strength to force the reader into thought. I still feel that the current combination of the weakest stanza in terms of writing (as the third one to me clearly is) and the generic and obviously put religious conclusion that preaches obvious notions rather than provokes thought, do not sufficiently follow your well written ideasin the first two stanzas.
I want to be made to think, to unavoidably assess the case for God. Currently it falls short of that, and I feel from your responses, and from how near this piece is to being effective, you are aiming and want that effect on your reader.
RBJ
Man differs more from Man, than Man from Beast~ Rochester
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro~ HST
Man differs more from Man, than Man from Beast~ Rochester
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro~ HST