Listen to the Pacific

i wasn't sure if this belongs in any of the other categories, so i just threw it in here.

the theme of this poem is: War.

Far beyond the edge of reason,
far beyond morality,
committing lies and acts of treason,
reminded of mortality.

Taking blind leaps towards his end,
the thing he calls a goal.
Nerves will tense and wills will bend
before it claims his soul.

He will go wherever he chooses,
making all the wrong decisions.
Fighting peaces of games he loses
and spreading his derisions.

'Put an end to all of it',
say all the men of the Pacific.
'or it may just put an end to you.'

Far beyond the edge of reason,
far beyond morality,
committing lies and acts of treason,
reminded of mortality.

Oddly enough, I'm reminded of Metallica's "One"...the only thing I think I caught that needed to be fixed is the word "peaces" in line 3 of the third stanza. I don't know if that's how you intended it or if you meant, "pieces"

that was intentional...you have to read it as 'peaces' and as 'pieces'

i don't know why, but i like doing that in my poems

I really really enjoyed reading this piece.
I thought the theme was creative and clever and you used many words that caught my attention and made the poem have tons of voice and I felt so much color.
The only line I had an issue with was:
"Fighting peaces of games he loses "
I didn't quite understand the begginning of it.
Perhaps you could explain?

Normally I hate repetition in a poem but here it was okay for me.
I got a really medieval vibe while reading this.
I sincerely thought it was an amazing pieve and I could see it in a book.
You are headed for great things if you write like this.
8.5/10

PS Again I really must say how much I loved it.

Hey. I liked this!

My favourite is maybe the third stanza, because it rhymes so well and the dilemma between "peaces" - "pieces" is kind of genius. Haha.

The rhyming is great, good job on that! I also liked that you repeated the first stanza in the end. And I liked the title. I liked this much.

All the love from
Demeter

If you hadn't blatantly stated that this is about war, I probably would not have known. That is not something to aim for. In fact, if a poem cannot stand on its own without pre-explanation, that's a clear sign it needs to be looked at again. However, you have the clear beginnings of something. Usually, people write poems without paying attention to word choice. Here, you've got a head start on the word choice, but I can't see much of a story (it doesn't have to be a "story" per se, just a connecting idea throughout the poem).

Words like "fighting" and "games" and "mortality" and "treason" all give clues that this poem has a clear militaristic direction. But other than a string of words relating to the idea of war, what does this poem do? I see something about a war that has gone on for too long, but it's vague. Concentrate more on images than solitary statements to clarify things a little more. The other thing you might do is look at the verb forms and sentence structure. Pretty much everything is in the present participle (the "-ing" form), but this doesn't ground the general idea of war anywhere. It makes it seem as if all these things are happening, but after this very moment, they will cease to exist and never be thought of again.

You might also want to look at structure. The first, second, and last stanzas don't have much in the way of subjects, so it makes it seem as if all of these things are happening, but to nothing. Which doesn't make much sense. I know it might seem to sound more "poetic", but it just makes everything seem baseless.

To that end, take another look at the word "peaces". Yes, "pieces" works as well. That's a good direction to be thinking in. However, it's even better if you don't call attention to it by spelling it another way. In this case, "pieces" makes more sense than "peaces" in the context of a board game, so I'd go with that. Either that, or rewrite the phrase so that "peaces" makes sense.

'peaces' does make sense. surely if you realize that i was comparing wars to 'games', you would be able to make sense of the word 'peaces'.

*sigh*...it's really quite frustrating when people post comments on things they don't take the time to understand.

A very good poem.

I'm afraid I'm not good at reviewing these, but aside from the peaces thing that others have already mentioned it is very good. On a side note, I love how this poem is about war and yet you mention the Pacific, which means peaceful. Don't know if that was intentional or not, but it was very well done.

kudos:)

'peaces' does make sense. surely if you realize that i was comparing wars to 'games', you would be able to make sense of the word 'peaces'.

*sigh*...it's really quite frustrating when people post comments on things they don't take the time to understand.

Of course "peaces" makes sense phonetically, and in the context of a "game" it's obvious that the sounds of pieces/peaces make sense.

However, I still think that "pieces" would be a better word choice because of the word "games". Nothing else in the poem is spelled as something other than what is expected. Just looking at double meanings for similar-sounding words in this poem, "will" could have referred to someone's last will and testament, or could be the verb; "bend" could be both the breaking down of a decision or a bend in the road; "soul" sounds the same as the "sole" of a shoe. However, these things do not make sense in context. It's obvious that "will" and "bend" are used as verbs, and that "soul" refers to the person rather than the bottom of the shoe. By the same reasoning, "peaces" should refer to peaceful interaction between two entities. However, that does not make sense in context, which is why spelling "pieces" as "peaces" calls attention to itself.

When form and structure call attention to themselves, when someone focuses more on how something is written than why it's written or what it's written about, it makes the topic seem unimportant. Which is unfortunate because many topics, including this one, are exactly the opposite.

what i literally meant by that line was that many people reject failure--the 'failure is not an option' mentality. 'games' really refers to 'wars'. that's it! all i was saying with that line is "when people lose wars, they hold grudges".

i'm sorry i had to revert to actually explaining what my verses mean. obviously either i have failed as a poet or you have failed as a reader (or perhaps both).

Awesome poem!

I really liked it!

*clicks gold star*

Great! Keep writin'!

~Lulu