The Preacher

The Preacher

Cushioned by his holy books spoils galore
I can still remember the preacher.
A wizened being of great reverence,
a beacon of glory and righteousness.
Aptly perched high above the masses:
the sentinel of Him - the herald of G-d.

Bothered by the intensifying stench
of those unwashed. Bathed in rotten sweet muck,
the parade of revolting innocence –
with what water could we purify ourselves?

A symbol of omnipotence -
Man’s salvation.
Hallowed be thy name
for God is dead in our hearts.
And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers
of all murderers, console ourselves?

Make us believe O preacher!
Help us to attain a greater sense of
spiritualitymadnessdelusionreligion.
Sacrificial vigour brings forth
submission and the pentad
trunks of scorching wether origin.

You who Have Watched from the Heavens.
Hush! To blaspheme is a sin. Atone now!
Repent in the name of the LORD.

Yes, the messenger of all entities,
the man of a thousand voices.
Spoon feed the world with your immense
Faith. There has never been a greater deed;
for the sake of this deed he shall be part
of a higher history.

Loved the whole thing, the emotion was overwhelming! In a recent visit to the Vatican I realised just how much some people want to find God and they look so hard they miss the point. Great poem =)

Nikiller wrote:Cushioned by his holy books spoils galore
I can still remember the preacher.

you were cushioned or was the preacher cushioned within his own deceitful books? you are being unclear.

A wizened being of great reverence,

eh, generally a preacher's image is not wizened, and i would not recommend writing about him as if he is an ancient ancient man. but for creative license, go ahead.

a beacon of glory and righteousness.
Aptly perched high above the masses:
the sentinel of Him - the herald of G-d.

aptly sounds awkward as an adjective in this context.

why are you not just saying "God"? you do it later on, so theres no continuity...

Bothered by the intensifying stench
of those unwashed. Bathed in rotten sweet muck,
the parade of revolting innocence –
with what water could we purify ourselves?

i think he would be a bit more than "bothered". the rest of this stanza is good, though; nice imagery adds the layer to an already-powerful occuring story.

A symbol of omnipotence -
Man’s salvation.
Hallowed be thy name
for God is dead in our hearts.
And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers
of all murderers, console ourselves?

i do like the severe contrasts you introduce - scripture vs conversation, holy law vs emotions, etc - but it seems to be drowning the theme in this stanza. maybe loosen up on the descriptions and sneak in an actual idea.

Make us believe O preacher!
Help us to attain a greater sense of
spiritualitymadnessdelusionreligion.
Sacrificial vigour brings forth
submission and the pentad
trunks of scorching wether origin.

nothing i can say here. very good. now the message is beginning to come out more clearly, of the mockery of religion.

You who Have Watched from the Heavens.

why is all this capitalized?

Hush! To blaspheme is a sin. Atone now!
Repent in the name of the LORD.

haha, ordering the lord to follow the lord's command. clever and profound as well when i think about it.

Yes, the messenger of all entities,
the man of a thousand voices.

"yes" doesn't work here, sounds too much like a proper conclusion.

Spoon feed the world with your immense
Faith.

immense faith? find a better word to describe faith.

There has never been a greater deed;
for the sake of this deed he shall be part
of a higher history.

this reads too much as an essay than the ending to a poem

in general, i liked where this story went, progression was acceptable, word-choice was spot on, imagery was strong and fundamental to the piece (which is what every writer should crave). good work.

Thanks for the comments everyone, much appreciated.

However, Galerius I would like to come back to you on a few points:

you were cushioned or was the preacher cushioned within his own deceitful books? you are being unclear.

I would have thought this was quite clear. The second line is written in the first person, therefore it is evident that 'his' is referring to the preacher.

why are you not just saying "God"? you do it later on, so theres no continuity...

Surely not everything has to follow a certain pattern in a poem; I have omitted the 'o' for a reason.

why is all this capitalized?

Again, done for a reason.

I am not showing myself to be defensive, but I feel that you are taking my poem too literally. Being a poet yourself, I find it confusing as to how you are doing this. Surely you have read many poems which are obscure, in fact most great ones are, with double meanings and sometimes broken syntax. Poets are deliberate in every aspect and all things, from spelling to capitalisation are done with intention. Nonetheless, I appreciate your reading and I hope that my next piece will have a stronger connection with you.

Nikiller wrote:I would have thought this was quite clear. The second line is written in the first person, therefore it is evident that 'his' is referring to the preacher.

It could very well have been referring to the narrator, as he could be saying that the preacher's words and holy book spun a web of false words around the narrator - therefore "cushioning" him. What I'm saying is that it isn't clear on first read, and you certainly want your first line to be the clearest so the reader does not get a negative impression of the poem right off the bat.

Surely not everything has to follow a certain pattern in a poem; I have omitted the 'o' for a reason.

The omission makes me think of Judaism, and later when you actually do use the word "God", I think of Christianity. Was this your intention? If so, good idea, but not so good execution, for again it is confusing.

Again, done for a reason.

And my question was asked for a reason as well; I would like to know why.

(Is it a simple reference to the way God's words and title are always capitalized in the Bible?)

I am not showing myself to be defensive, but I feel that you are taking my poem too literally. Being a poet yourself, I find it confusing as to how you are doing this. Surely you have read many poems which are obscure, in fact most great ones are, with double meanings and sometimes broken syntax. Poets are deliberate in every aspect and all things, from spelling to capitalisation are done with intention. Nonetheless, I appreciate your reading and I hope that my next piece will have a stronger connection with you.

I believe I did understand the premise of the poem - I chose not to comment, however, because I felt that the theme did not need much reworking as it seemed well thought-out. The presentation, though, needed work - intention may be there, but its accessibility is the question - and that is why I focused on only that in my critique.

Yes, I look forward to reading your next work.