This is a delightful little parody of what happens when one fixates on a particular aspect of writing to the detriment of other parts, from focusing excessively on meter while ignoring what the sentence is actually saying, to concentrating on word choice while neglecting proper punctuation.
Still, I feel that the irony would be more entertaining if the particular sections were more clearly in violation of what they were praising.
I quite enjoyed this subtle, somewhat quirky little piece.
What I most enjoyed reflecting upon (and I'm not sure if this was your conscious intention) is the subtle parallel drawn between the narrator and the fly. The fly has the whole outside world to explore, or at least a full city, but it is impulsively scrutinizing the pipe.
Meanwhile, the narrator is ensconced within his human structure, its "thick-glassed" windows supposedly protecting "human affairs" from nature's affairs, and yet he/she is scrutinizing the fly.
Each is focusing on something that is supposedly not a part of their world, and the similarity of their behavior further reinforces just how closely bound together the two worlds are, if they can be said to be divisible at all.
It's the sort of poem that takes some contemplation to grasp its meaning (or at least my interpretation of its meaning.) Whether others would take the time to really dig into it depends upon the reader.
Firstly, let me get the "reviewing part" of this review out of the way. You present your arguments clearly and logically, with the possible exception of three points (see below,) though either may simply be the result of the lateness of the hour wearing down on my reasoning skills.
Also, in the first footnote, second sentence, I assume that "these particles will be sown" should read "these particles will be shown".
This is not really fundamental to the argument, but the first place where I became lost was in the sixth paragraph, sentence four, in which you state "He would necessarily be a part of Nature, and thus not Supernatural – nor God – at all". Perhaps I simply didn't catch what definition of "God" you were using, but I don't quite understand how this follows.
However, this next point is fundamental to the conclusion. I don't understand how determinism, and all scientific thinking being derived from an deterministic universe is necessarily inconsistent with that same scientific thinking being logical and able to acquire truths, as would seem to be suggested by paragraphs eleven and twelve. Certainly there is the possibility that scientific and logical reasoning is internally consistent and not consistent with reality, but I wouldn't consider this to be proof by any stretch.
Finally, you present the position that humans derive Truth, and indeed all thoughts from an external, supernatural realm. Doesn't this put you in the same awkward position of Descartes with his pineal gland and reduction ad infinitum? For that matter, doesn't any position that posits a relationship between a Natural and Supernatural existence?
Having a dog myself, the imagery at the very beginning of the dog's head rising resonates with me and endeared me instantly to the character, as I think it would for anyone who owns a dog. The careful thought process the dog goes through, comparing his plans to a military campaign, are quite amusing. I'm curious though, whether you intend the irony that has become inherent in the phrase "Mission Accomplished"?
Perhaps my favorite part of this piece is the detached, analytical tone of the narrator. It really reflects a great deal about him when he is casually, almost scientifically, describing slamming a man's head into the concrete. However, you walk a tightrope by using this sort of style, as the lack of visceral details might prevent the reader from becoming truly immersed in it. On the other hand, a vivid description of a man's brains splattering on the pavement might be going too far.
The fact that the rescued victim almost thanks him with pepper spray is a nice little ironic twist which probably quite accurately reflects the state of irrational shock one would be after suffering through an experience like that.
I look forward to seeing how he interacts with this "vigilante" in later stories, as well as some background on how the narrator has his abilities, though I understand that he himself might not know.
You really do a great job evoking a chilling atmosphere of dread, which draws the reader in.
I would say that there seems to be a bit of inconsistency in the order of events, though I only noticed it on a second look, and then reconsidered it as I took a third look. I should probably still mention it. In the third stanza it says that the narrators "tasted death" but on the six stanza they say in the present tense "now the lambs lament their fate." My initial objection was that the hounds were tasting the dead flesh, but that then the lambs were lamenting their fate afterward. On my third reflection, I concluded that either those still living were facing their imminent demises, or more terrifyingly, that those who had died continue to suffer. Thus, the apparent inconsistency actually further draws the reader in, so that they come to such a disconcerting realization.
I would switch the seventh and eighth stanzas for chronology's sake, though I could see how it may break the flow somewhat.
As for grammatical nitpicking: In the first two lines of the last stanza you seem to have a run-on sentence easily fixed by splitting them neatly by line. You should also add a comma after the second line of that stanza. In the eighth stanza, I would recommend that you make the first two lines a single sentence and remove the comma in line three, perhaps moving it to the end of that line. The second line of the sixth stanza could use a comma at the end. There are two grammatical nitpicks I could make about the first two stanzas, but I think that they would damage it stylistically, as you may justifiably feel all my grammatical suggestions would.
Overall, it was quite an enjoyable and engaging piece.
It was somewhat of an interesting dilemma as to what criteria I should use to rate this piece, but I ultimately decided to judge it based upon whether I could relate to it and whether I found it important. The answer is that I could relate to it quite well and indeed found it rather heartening, as a new author to Writing.com.
While one can assume that other authors come to this website with the same intent as oneself, it is nice to see it actually written by a particular individual.
I know that you expect suggestions, but I really don't see much to criticize in this, not even in clarity and organization.
-Gregory Maus
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/gregmaus
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.21 seconds at 7:41am on Jun 29, 2024 via server web1.
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
