the most confusing part of this poem for me is the "of" in the second line. I don't think you need it and it seems to be to be disrupting the flow of the piece.
I find it interesting in the end that your scared to let God see your message because if you are or were a believe you shouldn't be scared of your judgment unless you have been very bad.
so I'm guessing you have been bad.
As usual another great read from Dan.
Keep on Trucking
doing some gray area reviewing
to show of my new sigs.
this poem is actually pretty amazing except for the end part where your hope is God (just a little existentialism joke but really no qualms here). the pace is beautiful with desolation and I love it.
the only problem I have with this poem which might be opinion based but I actually have reasoning for it too is in the little fragmented line "Bound by their rejection of God - a killing cast." my problem isn't with the whole line but more with the "a killing cast part." I'm not saying I'm offended because that doesn't even matter but that I think the representation of "the killing caste" should not be about the peoples themselves since they are aloud to have their own view of life but about pertaining to the view of their soul without a God. so basically I'm saying these people themselves aren't bad for dieing with their own views that are not similar to your own but more that their souls want be saved in the same way.
I hope that wasn't confusing and if it was please ask me questions and I will do my best to clear up any mis understandings.
I like the poem
the meaning of this simple piece of life.
even thought the object has no life.
it remind me of a certain philosophy that I'm not going start rambling about now.
the only thing is the beginning line is very awkward to say.
I understand the reflective necessary at this point but it is to much.
a great point that most people don't think of I'm glad you brought it up in this masterful poem.
"Blend our nation with all cultures; embrace
true acceptance."
this line is brilliant and a problem at once but I don't think you should change it I just wanted to make a point that you probably already know. Its a conceptual problem with Blend our nation with all cultures and a problem I've been arguing with various people over time. there are two analogies used to describe America's cultural mix "Melting pot" and "Salad Bowl." you are portraying the melting pot with states we are all a mesh of multiple cultures which can't be deciphered the salad bowl still sows some of these cultural distinctions because your thrown in the bowl but the identity is still there. The problem with the melting pot is you have to make everyone the same which is typically unrealistic because people of different groups look to be part of the different group. I'm just getting at that blending it all together isn't the best idea for understanding tolerance but that seeing the differences and allowing them to occur is a better way to represent them.
that is neither here or there and good luck on the contest.
I've read this piece a few times and never made a comment and I'm deciding now seems a good time to leave a comment. I love this piece because I've been over this argument many times in different philosophy classes I've taken over the years which happen to make this piece even more enjoyable because I've read many times why this argument came about. Its
It's about two different issues: can things happen without human experience and can a person actually understand and explain things that happen without human experience?
the conundrum is a lot of fun and I like the scientific and nonsensical answer you explain in this entertaining story. Very well done.
Still my favorite joke about this issue is from the one-liner-mono-drone stand up comedian Steven Wright.
"I was walking through the forest alone and a tree fell right in front of me and I didn't hear it...have any questions?"
the last line seems very out of place. I think the guys in your story are past the point of wondering what death is like and just want to get it over with and die.
I think you should add more to this piece and kill off each of the men. you could do a sequence where the other two are telling the story of the old man friend that died in this story a year after the fact and then one of them die.
or
you could have the one guy that wasn't talking ask the talking guy do you know how old that guy was and after he gives the guys age he can say wel I only have so many years but I hope I don't make it that long.
this poem is great I love the idea of the poem and the way you've used this drop like effect in the rhythm of the poem itself.
I do have one suggestion:
ludicrous
coincidences—
I see what your trying to get at this point but these two words don't seem to produce the right effect.
how about:
randomized
coincidences—
I think this is a better representations of what your trying to say. But it is a little difficult to say so another word might fit better than that one.
I love this poem its great. Very funny and original.
I only have one problem with this poem and it shouldn't be that much of a problem to fix.
the last line feels like mud on the tongue. the flow doesn't roll like the rest of the piece.
(and) pick a long line to (wait) in!
I think you might want to take out the (and).
or you might want to change the word (wait).
these words seem to have a heavy speaking pattern making the whole line hard to say with flow.
I like the parts of the whole just not how they are placed together. Most of the writing I've done in my life is has been academic writing. It is often straight foreword to the point and boring but it gets the information across. In academic writing you start with the topic, explain the topic, show an example, and finish it off with a summary. Now in this piece you don't really need all those parts just some of them. I think you should keep your starting point:
"Listening is a part of everyday life . . . and is it? So much talking, so little listening. True communication can not take place unless we learn to listen. Too many times we don't even realize that misunderstanding has taken place."
then start talking about you and you're friend not listening.
then you can go over the scene in detail of how you should be listening.
I love your questions- "How do you listen? What do we have to do to really listen?"
but they shouldn't be attached because they are talking about two different things. Actually they would be perfect subject headers to section of the piece. I would actually have "How do you listen?" the last line of the piece to bring everything into the readers mind of their own experiences. "What do we have to do to really listen?" is a perfect subject header after explaining the wrong things you and your friend do when you don't listen to each other.
I think if you get the ordering down it will flow better and be more persuasive of the issue at hand.
I think Martin Luther King would fight for equal rights for gay couples. Meaning, he would want gay couples/partners to have the same legal contractual rights that is apart of married. However, I think Martin Luther King's pastor status would disagree with calling this social legal contract marriage. To reiterate, he would fight for equal rights but not for the actual word marriage.
(side note: the distinction between the meaning of marriage, the social rights that go along with marriage, and the presumed moral qualms between the social acceptability of homosexuality and heterosexuality is a mashed-mass potato mess of one sided arguments, not realizing that each ingredient is a separate issue of the same subject and could actually be eaten in one gulp by some simply concept understanding. Then again, when I was little i always played with my mashed potatoes. But in the words of my parents, "STOP FOOLING AROUND AND EAT YOUR FOOD, YOUR MAKING A SCENE!!!")
Just a small suggestion on a monumental moment of some consequential time.
Just remember all we are are who we were.
Just remember all we 'are' are who we were.
I understand why you didn't use our instead of are and it's very necessary you don't use our but I think it needs apostrophes around the first are.
Just remember all we are are who we were.
Nothing more, but sadly oftentimes less than what we could be.
I understand the idea with time at the end. It just seems to me to neglected thoughts on the act-of-being. So I was wondering what your thoughts are on the act-of-being.
nothing more nothing less. something pretty simple.
there are many spelling mistakes in this small piece. I myself am a horrible speller and probably couldn't function without the use of the built in spell checker on Wring.com or with the infamous Word software. These things help immensely so don't be afraid to use it.
First of all, I disagree with your statement that a you shouldn't talk about religion and politics. For me to understand a person I think you need to know their beliefs, experiences, and thoughts. I do agree however that you are indirectly getting at is a better way in how people should talk about these subjects. When I say talk I actually mean listen to each other not confess, not profess, and most of all with a respectful grace. One problem that builds a in these situations is emotional attachment to the subject sets people into a defensive mind frame. They don't want to be judged or laughed and either does their listener, so they attack each other. that emotion is a problem but not all emotion. I love talking to passionate religious people as long as they are talking and not converting. I don't believe in God and very strong in my stance and that doesn't need any fixing. My life right.
Anyway, the biggest problem I see with your inquire is that for some religions their isn't a distinction between subjects that are religious and aren't religious because everything emanates from their concept of God. Which is fine for them but not for your thesis inquire. I'm Sorry for bursting your thought bubble so early in it's development. It is an important subject to me and to you and I hope you find another angle in or around the matter.
it is great you accepted what you've disliked with as much bravery as you did. Also, that you're able to give president Obama a chance to change your mind about him shows strong integrity. However, to make this piece even stronger I think you you should actually say why you dislike president Obama. Be it ideological, policy, or the way he acts on stage it doesn't matter.
I like this piece a lot. It's a great concept that you've captured with this loving pet. Very creative.
The ending seems a bit weak though. It seems to be letting humans get off the hook for messing up the natural world. I don't know how you would add something like that to this piece though.
"The final battle is about to erupt. The land, already ravaged by previous battles lies eerily silent in the moments before the “final” battle erupts." you say the same thing twice in these sentences you should probably just use the second one.
I don't understand why you place some of the words in quotes. for instance: "victory" and “final”
One conceptual thing I don't understand is the issues of "chaos and anarchy" being the opposite of "peace and stability" you should just use good and evil instead.
Don't forget you can have peace and stability under a tyrant and have peace from chaos.
with the good and evil issue you could explain how each of the armies thought they were good but that their enemies thought they were bad. that would make your conclusion of good and evil fighting for eternity but it doesn't matter because both armies are good and evil to some extent.
this theory is solid and seems well received. (I have a few more notes that I will expand upon and send you later but for now something else.)
"The trick is to learn when to CEASE the pruning process. So often a song will be so mechanical by the time the recording process is finished, it loses part of its message. This indeed is why live music is often more enjoyable than the original recording."
music does get lost in the pruning process of recording with the use of technically specifically mixing boards - You could say that a band practicing could also be to much pruning. But one aspect of music that doesn't lose from pruning is live music which is do to the audiences energy and not necessarily pruning. each full venue brings it's own birth of sound because of the audiences instant reaction in which you can't go back and change.
reading your poetry to a group of people out load would have this same effective because it would be your voice reflection and not the stagnant written word production the readers/listeners reaction.
Live are is always different than stagnate art.
I'll send some more thoughts to ponder after I'm done writing them.
I like your point but it seems that you turn on yourself.
you might want to add a repeated line to equal out the battle.
light cannot exist without dark,
darkness will die without light,
dark follows,
light leads,
their continuous battle will never end, light follows.
dark leads.
neither can ever win.
you might want two lines instead of one.
Assumptions and interpretations
of two indifferent beings,
I think this should also change but I don't know how. "The namer of the beings sides"
Also for some of your opposing light dark things you might want words with exact opposites and then point out them being opposites is pointless in a stronger way.
the best thing about this poem is it's rhythm. It brings me back to high school when I use to yell at the drummers to practice their rudiments-are technical strokes to improve a players abilities (thanks for the memories). It's the same as telling a trombone players to practice their scales (yes, I play the trombone).
In light of percussive reasons I would suggest to add one more " 'cause he can " to those lines.
If you really want to be brave with drumming fallow a meter with Paradiddle-diddle or other rudiments.
My biggest problem of the argument of gay marriages is from the miss understanding from both sides. As you stated very clearly from your bible references you see it amoral and for the human rights aspect you state a simply but weak statement of them not having the rights.
Yes, they should have the human right but they don't because there is a linguistically argument with the word marriage.
From a marriage contract a husband and or wife has legal rights to make decisions for their spouse on various issues if they are incapable of doing so or after their death. Now a civil union between to people of the same sex doesn't give the same rights in regards to those issues. So since gays/lesbians can't get marriage in that logistical right it is a persecution of their rights.
You can think they are going to hell if you like but don't you believe if someone else loved you they would want to make the right choices for you? now lets say you got hurt or something (I'm not wishing it on you it's just an example) and they were going to pull your plug and you didn't believe in that because of your religion but you never had it in writing. Your wife could make that decision but not your life partner because of the whole marriage contract. How powerless would your loved one feel if they knew they couldn't help you with your wishes?
Ohh yeah, I have a religion wondering for you, isn't the judgment suppose to be after you die about how your life was lead and not during it? as well with the people doing sin let them your all good.
You brought your arguments clearly and forthright which is very important in an essay/article. Also, I love your passionate writing spilling onto the page. Some would disagree and say not to show passion in writing of this nature that nonsense won’t come from me.
The biggest problem with this is the organization. I’m not saying your thoughts aren’t organized or unclear but that the order of the argument is a bit unsettling.
Anarchists understand that the "government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful."-
This paragraph should start the paper or be closer to the beginning. It’s always important to define things right away especially when it’s the main subject in the topic. Then you can talk about how Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Actually I lied, the starting point should be a different paragraph all together stating what your going to argue (this is a strictly academic form of writing and if your not into that than its all good)
Your opinion stance should be defined after that then you can do your back and forth of information between defending your opinion rather than Anarchists. Do the whole summation thingy at the end with a strong finishing stance.
My last thoughts are about your view of Anarchism (I think I’ve read some of Proudhon but it was awhile ago but that’s beside the point). In your discussion of egalitarian communist state compared as a similarity of anarchism is not true. In the egalitarian communist state there are leaders which isn’t Anarchists (even though in the Marx definition of communism those people should step down once the system has changed from their old system to the new system. Oh yeah, this stepping down has never happened but hey greed is fun). A better example but still not an example of Anarchism is the American Indian’s system of self governing egalitarian (this is also closer to Marx’s communism because the elders, I believe, only meet on specific issues and instances pertaining on when to move from place to place and rituals).
Now the problem with the lens you’re viewing both the egalitarian communist state and Anarchism boils down to the protection of property and wealth. To have either of these government systems and technically Anarchism is a system is to eliminate property and wealth because those are the basis of government systems. Now in communism there is no wealth but everything is shared and in Anarchism there is none of it all together. Book/movie quote time however it’s not exact I don’t have that much energy “if you wipe out the debt of the finical system everyone would be the same”-fight club. As I was saying, your lens of view is in your brilliant example of the internet as Anarchism (which I agree with 100%) but it was bent wrong because the crimes you define as happing are actually crimes through the use of the internet and not from its general governing boundaries; also the crimes are property or identity crimes (which only matters with a social status system of wealth and prestige) which is not part of the Anarchism system. When looking at a confuting subject, I like to tell people, actually you’re the first one but I’ll continue from now on, imagine you’re a fanatic obsessed with the subject understand it completely then make your arguments against it (basically I have a wild and compulsive researching disorder with every word about an issue).
Nicely written. I loved the descriptive line "fly around in a cosmic Crayola psychosis." I think this piece needs more hallucinogenic hypnoses description to emphasize why these kids want the high as well with a stronger argument that this high is just as bad as others.
Side note: I was a pharmacy technician at a local family-owned independent pharmacy for ten years. Unlike many technicians, I knew every person that came into the pharmacy by their first name unless it was their first time there. I had a scared respect for all the pills and complete disgust with the improper self medicating done by stupid people. We use to get these lists, about once a month, of pharmacy technicians not to hire because they took pills from other pharmacies they worked for. It's a sad and crazy environment mixed with addicts, the dieing, the grieving, the sick and the healthy. I loved it and now I miss it but I don't want to ever go back to it again.
I'm glad for your safety as well as the safety of your family but my heart grows sad reading the atrocities of your country. While reading this piece my mine fluttered back in time to the small college I attended four my undergraduate degree; safely behind books and ivory towers I read about many atrocities in a course named Holocaust and Genocides. We studied the events and the numbers as well as the social causes but to this day I will never fully understand any reasons for past events to dictating a need for a violent future.
I like the idea of this 55 wordier, as well as, how you told the story. One thing that might improve it is to change the form (I'm not the most qualified person to suggest this in any right, hence the public posting, plus others should read it.) but if you go downwards with your sentences instead of next to each other It might be more effective (sorry everyone I don't know if that form has a name or any of the forms names). Good stuff either way. Keep on trucking.
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/merlack/sort_by/r.review_creation_time DESC/page/9
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 0.11 seconds at 4:52am on Jul 13, 2025 via server WEBX1.
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
