Who?

(Yes the commas are supposed to be here, please pause at each one. I shouldn't have to tell anyone to do this.)

Who?

Who, threw the rock, that landed, on Jim?
The rock, whose jagged edges, instantly, killed him
Or did the rock, throw itself, so consumed, with its spite?
And is this, on the inside, what all rocks, are like?
Do they talk, to the pebbles, on their right, and their left?
Do they speak, of the anger, inside of, themselves?
And is it, so great, that they rise, off the ground?
And on, some poor souls, head come, raining down?
With no eyes, there so see, can they target, a sight?
Can a rock, that is blind, put up, a good fight?
Impossible, I say, here you have, a hard sale
Do you expect me, to believe, so fantastical, a tale?
No its you, my dear friend, who threw the rock, at Jim
For we all know, you held grudges, inside, against him.

Demetri Saint Randrac wrote:Who?

Who, threw the rock, that landed, on Jim?
The rock, whose jagged edges, instantly, killed him
Or did the rock, throw itself, so consumed, with its spite?
And is this, on the inside, what all rocks, are like?
Do they talk, to the pebbles, on their right, and their left?
Do they speak, of the anger, inside of, themselves?
And is it, so great, that they rise, off the ground?
And on, some poor souls, head come, raining down?
With no eyes, there so see, can they target, a sight? What does that mean?
Can a rock, that is blind, put up, a good fight?
Impossible, I say, here you have, a hard sale You wrote that poem, we know you're saying things in it...
Do you expect me, to believe, so fantastical, a tale?
No its you, my dear friend, who threw the rock, at Jim
For we all know, you held grudges, inside, against him.

I'm not gonna lie--this is awful. What's with those commas??? I can't even read that...
Besides that, it's good. Nice personification, although my tongue is now twisted. You got to simplify this a bit...

I love the title....It added some sense to all this... Oh, who's Jim?

Who, threw the rock, that landed, on Jim?

the quote above should be:

Who threw the rock, that landed on Jim?

Its a question right?

The rock, whose jagged edges, instantly, killed him

The quote should be: The rock, whose jagged edges, instantly killed him!


In my opinion to many comma are used in the wrong places.

The following should help you with putting them where they are needed. (This really helped me!)



Punctuation is a set of symbols used in writing to help indicate something about the structure of sentences, or to assist readers in knowing when to change the rhythm or the stress of their speaking.Depending on the style of writing and the language used, punctuation may tend towards one of these purposes more than the other. Common units of punctuation in English and many other languages include the comma, period, apostrophe, quotation mark, question mark, exclamation mark, bracket, dash, hyphen, ellipsis, colon, and semicolon. Each of these units indicates a different thing, and some may have multiple meanings depending on context.

The period or full stop, question mark, exclamation mark, and ellipsis all serve to terminate a sentence. A period is the default terminal punctuation mark, used to end a sentence without conveying any additional meaning. A question mark indicates that the preceding sentence takes the form of an interrogative, and may also be read to change the tone when reading aloud to reflect this. An exclamation mark indicates that the preceding sentence is somehow excited or extremely important, and if read aloud should be given special stress. An ellipsis indicates that some part of the sentence is being omitted; this may be used to refer to a theoretical clause, in which case it usually implies a trailing off of the voice when read aloud, or it may indicate that a real part of the sentence is omitted, often used when quoting long passages or quotations.

The comma is used for a wide range of different purposes in punctuation. In general, it is considered necessary stylistically to have all commas in a sentence serve the same function, to avoid confusion on the part of the reader. A comma may be used to separate units of a sentence such as an introduction or parenthetical thought, to separate items in lists such as this one, to lead a sentence into a quotation, and to separate independent clauses joined by a word such as “and” or “yet”. Commas also have a number of less common uses, too numerous to list in detail.

An apostrophe may be used as punctuation within a word to indicate an omitted letter, as in contractions such as don’t or e’er. It may also be used to show that a noun is possessive, such as in Harry’s name or the Seven Seas’ unrelenting waves.


Quotation marks are used as punctuation to denote quotations within text, or to offset a word or phrase as being an ironic or non-standard usage. The most common type of quotation marks are double quotes, such as: “There is much to like about that,” she said. Or: I wouldn’t say I “missed” work the other day. Single quotation marks, which are a type of punctuation that look similar to an apostrophe, may be used for quotations within quotations, such as in the case of: “As the Bard said, ‘To be or not to be, that is the question,’” He said sagely.

Dashes are used for a number of different purposes, often to link specific things together. A figure dash is used to link numbers together, such as in a phone number. An en dash is used to link things that are within a range, such as page numbers. An em dash is traditionally used to separate a thought from the flow of the sentence – like this – in an almost parenthetical manner. In some modern style guides, the en dash is taking over the em dash’s role of a thought separator in formal writing. A quotation dash is a unit of punctuation which looks approximately the same as the em dash, used to cite a quotation’s source in-text.

Hyphens are punctuation marks which look similar to dashes, but are shorter, and are used to join compound words which haven’t yet become independent words or which are being used adjectivally.

Brackets are used to offset text in some way from the main body. The main type of bracket punctuation used in writing is the parenthesis, with the others being used either to indicate parenthetical thoughts within a set of parenthesis or for specialized usages depending on style.

The colon is a unit of punctuation typically used to introduce a subsequent sentence that is in some way logically linked to the preceding sentence. Therefore, one may find colons serving as punctuation to introduce a list, to offset something that is a consequence of the fact stated in the preceding sentence, or to lead into a quotation.

A semicolon is a unit of punctuation used to link two independent clauses. It is usually used where a period is thought to create too strong a break between the sentences, but a comma is too weak a break. Often, semicolons are also used in place of a comma in lists which use commas for purposes other than offsetting list items, to avoid confusion.


I hope you adhere to my advice and that you continue writting.

I think that when you, or rather your speaker says (and I don't quite know how to quote so I'll make due):
"Do they talk, to the pebbles, on their right, and their left?
Do they speak, of the anger, inside of, themselves?
And is it, so great, that they rise, off the ground?
And on, some poor souls, head come, raining down?
With no eyes, there so see, can they target, a sight? "
you have an really interesting curious kind of tone to the poem. I enjoyed that aspect of it very much. However, I think your use of commas goes beyond something stylistic and it interferes with your message quite often. The first line of the section I quoted doesn't need that first comma, in fact none of the first commas in any of the lines should be there with exception to the last. Think of commas as breaths, they should come naturally in a sentence. Don't force something stylistic that isn't there; isn't natural. Otherwise have fun with it, explore your poem and be curious with words, you'll get there.

(SIGH)
I hope my exasperation is evident. The commas are there for a reason. Would you otherwise think they showed up by accident? Some freakish, heavily overlooked mistake? God no. I implicitly put them there so that readers would pause at each break. Darko, you mentioned it was hard to read this. The commas enable you to read this. You read it through, pausing at each break. Do I need to add this in the beginning? Simply put, if the commas were not there, the Work would make no sense whatsoever, or rather it would lose MY intended meaning. Remember, the most important thing here is to read it as the author intended, if I rewrote it with the corrections suggested here, it would no longer be my Work and would no longer have the meaning I intended.

Otherwise, please re-read it inserting pausing at the commas, as if each one ended the line with the following words beginning on another. I very well know HOW I could have written it to satisfy all the problems presented here, but I did not. Why? I wished it to be four breaks per line, my exploration. Somewhere between humans coming into existence and this moment right now, we as humans established rules regarding everything, including writing and its styles. What if we had made it a rule to write like the way I have written here and I then suggested to write the way many now suggest it should be written, then would you all not suggest I write it with the breaks? You would because that would be the established rule. Is this logic falling on deaf ears?

DSR

Hi there!
First off, the whole comma-pause thing just doesn't work. If the commas are in unecessary places, our minds will just skip over them. The "intended purpose" is in the words, not the commas. Pauses don't make a statement. It's the words. And if you are going to post things here on YWS, you're basically giving people free-range to say anything they want about your poem. We're just trying to help you write better (and yeah, I know, opinions, but since we all pointed out the comma thing, it's obviously taboo). And because we take the time to review your work, to try and help you, you should be grateful for our consideration. Don't go throwing hissy fits just because we don't like your grammar.
That said, I'll nitpick your poem (disregarding comma use, 'fcourse. ). Comments are in bold:

Who, threw the rock, that landed, on Jim?

The rock, whose jagged edges, instantly, killed him There should be a period here.

Or did the rock, throw itself, so consumed, with its spite?

And is this, on the inside, what all rocks, are like?

Do they talk, to the pebbles, on their right, and their left?

Do they speak, of the anger, inside of, themselves? This doesn't rhyme. It's not even a good slant rhyme. You've got to stay consistent, or nix the rhyme overall.

And is it, so great, that they rise, off the ground?

And on, some poor souls, head come,Head come? Since this is incorrect grammar, I'll assume you meant one of four things: Heads come, heads came, head comes, head came. Those last two would be used if "souls" is a typo, which I'll assume it is, and should be "soul's". raining down?

With no eyes, there so see, can they target, a sight?

Can a rock, that is blind, put up, a good fight?

Impossible, I say, here you have, a hard sale Again, there should be a period here.

Do you expect me, to believe, so fantastical, a tale?

No its you, my dear friend, who threw the rock, at Jim Ah, but here is where there should be a comma!

For we all know, you held grudges, inside, against him. Nix the "inside". It's unneeded and it throws off the rhythm.

To be honest, I didn't really like your rhyme scheme. Rhyme should add interest or something aesthetically pleasing to your poem. It should be natural and not seem forced. Here, I felt that you were rhyming just to rhyme. It didn't add any grace to the poem.
As for the message, I like it. It's not like you were accusing anyone of killing Jim. It just felt like you were curious as to who did it. It actually had a sort of cocky, sarcastic feel to it, and that's what appealed to me. For that, I commend you.

I see what you mean, and i think its really interesting what you've tried - im all for experimentation, if no-one did that writing would get boring - but surely some may argue that a poem is also to be interpetted by the reader, despite the poet's original intention? so maybe you intend the poem to mean one thing but another reader may get something completely different from the experience?
however, i just wanted to suggest that side of the argument (not fully uphold it) and really just wanted to compliment you on an excellent and unique piece of poetry.

k

I see what you mean about the periods, I had thought when composing this that there should be some. But you are right in one regard, to post where I have and on YWS is asking for a response, where otherwise I was not looking for one. My position is as one who is simply posting to present an interesting story for an alternative audience online aside from persons I share with offline. Yws is geared toward reviewing Works rather than simply reading them after coming home from a tough day at the office. I failed to see this at first, but now I do. You, Explosive Pen, have opened my eyes in that aspect. For this I commend you. I have in my previous response, posted a link which is actually a response toward reviews somewhat like the one you have given me. Please read it. Otherwise, I have a new variation of Who? Consider this:

Who taught you how to rhyme?
Who taught you about style?
Who taught you about grammar?
Who taught you about consistency?
Who, in fact, taught you all of these rules?
Who taught them?
Who then, taught that person?
Who was the first man (or woman) to establish this?
Who has kept to this age old wisdom?
Who hasn't deviated from this foundation?
Who hasn't implemented changes over time?
Who remembers that person in line eight (of this)?
Who said what they established was right?
Who had the courage to refute their rules?
Who doesn't think that what they said about writing sets the tone for the way we think about it today?
Who doesn't know that through centuries building on this we have writing as we see it today?
Who doesn't realize that we are now brainwashed and deprived of our literary freedom because of this?
Who doesn't realize that the rules constrain our ability to express?
Who doesn't see that (these) rules pack mud on our minds and calls it Focus?
Who is determined one way or another to be right, rather than being open minded?
Who is too set in a stone named Rules to climb outside the box?
Who feels that every time they want to convey something they must first consult this-Handbook?
Who doesn't know that if they were the first writer on earth their biased beliefs would affect all those who come after them?
Who doesn't know that its quite possible for a line of people to build off this unstable structure and produce Rules?
Who in today's time can even comprehend this without taking into consideration their beliefs?
Who can review without using words like "should" and phrases like "this is how its supposed to be"?
Who realizes that it's the imperfect Man (or group of) that decided this is "how it should be"?
Who doesn't realize that because of this establishment and it alone, no rules regarding writing can ever be accurate unless they are given to Man by some divine other worldly source?
Who is beginning to understand that by abandoning our rules (to writing) we might eventually be free?
Who can even begin to imagine the possibilities?
Who reading this now is already focusing on the negatives and preparing to respond nastily?
Who is afraid to have their world turned upside down and their (supposed) knowledge and the (relative) safety they feel in it-Challenged?
Who is prepared to accept this and write without fear of condemnation?
Who is just fine with the way things are?
Who wants freedom?
Who?


DSR

Chill out.

Chill. Out.

I get it, the commas are experimental. You're allowed to do what you want. But, this coming from a peer who reads poetry and studies writing, it reads atrociously. The pauses, so often, in one line -- truly unpleasant.

Experiment has failed. Try again.

I can see what you were trying to do with the commas, but it didn't work very well, as you can probably surmise from the other posts. The commas just make the entire poem feel so very jerky, all stop-and-go, and it's not at all fun to read. Also, if a poem is written well enough, the reader will instinctively pause in the intended places because that's where a pause would naturally occur. Also, if you want specific words to be emphasized, capitalization, italicization, bolding, underlining, or even spacing out those words (l i k e s o) are perfectly legitimate and less jarring methods.

Now, if you are really wed to your commas, you might consider placing them a little more carefully so that they enhance the natural rhythm of the words and phrases. Several commas spliced this rhythm which really added to the choppy feel. Also, chose between the commas denoting either pauses or various elements of grammar and not have them stand in for both. That's just confusing.

With that in mind, I'll be making suggestions on better comma placement.

Who, threw the rock, that landed, on Jim?

I suggest moving the comma after "on"

The rock, whose jagged edges, instantly, killed him

The comma after "instantly" throws off the rhythm of this line.

Or did the rock, throw itself, so consumed, with its spite?
And is this, on the inside, what all rocks, are like?
Do they talk, to the pebbles, on their right, and their left?

The commas in these three lines are unnecessary in this line, but because you've placed them where natural pauses occur, they're not as jarring.

Do they speak, of the anger, inside of, themselves?

The comma after "of" interferes with the natural rhythm. Try placing it after "inside".

And is it, so great, that they rise, off the ground?

This line would be better if there were a comma after "And". Also, inserting and "of" after "off" would further improve the rhythm.

And on, some poor soul's, head come, raining down?

Comma moved to after "And" and after "head". Omit the third comma.

With no eyes, there so see, can they target, a sight?

There so see?

Can a rock, that is blind, put up, a good fight?
Impossible, I say, here you have, a hard sale

No comments on these lines.

Do you expect me, to believe, so fantastical, a tale?

A comma could be placed after "you". Also, "so fantastical" has far too many syllables and derails the poem's rhythm.

No it's you, my dear friend, who threw the rock, at Jim

For we all know, you held grudges, inside, against him.

The "inside" also throws off the rhythm. I suggest removing it since grudges are usually held inside a person and so it doesn't contribute as much to the line.

That said, we readers aren't mind readers, and this is a site with a large population of young writers who may not know how to properly use commas (I've seen quite a number in my short stint already). Keep this in mind in the future, and try not to bite the hand that's trying to feed you. :P

[spoiler]

Demetri Saint Randrac wrote:Who taught you how to rhyme?
Who taught you about style?
Who taught you about grammar?
Who taught you about consistency?
Who, in fact, taught you all of these rules?
Who taught them?
Who then, taught that person?
Who was the first man (or woman) to establish this?
Who has kept to this age old wisdom?
Who hasn't deviated from this foundation?
Who hasn't implemented changes over time?
Who remembers that person in line eight (of this)?
Who said what they established was right?
Who had the courage to refute their rules?
Who doesn't think that what they said about writing sets the tone for the way we think about it today?
Who doesn't know that through centuries building on this we have writing as we see it today?
Who doesn't realize that we are now brainwashed and deprived of our literary freedom because of this?
Who doesn't realize that the rules constrain our ability to express?
Who doesn't see that (these) rules pack mud on our minds and calls it Focus?
Who is determined one way or another to be right, rather than being open minded?
Who is too set in a stone named Rules to climb outside the box?
Who feels that every time they want to convey something they must first consult this-Handbook?
Who doesn't know that if they were the first writer on earth their biased beliefs would affect all those who come after them?
Who doesn't know that its quite possible for a line of people to build off this unstable structure and produce Rules?
Who in today's time can even comprehend this without taking into consideration their beliefs?
Who can review without using words like "should" and phrases like "this is how its supposed to be"?
Who realizes that it's the imperfect Man (or group of) that decided this is "how it should be"?
Who doesn't realize that because of this establishment and it alone, no rules regarding writing can ever be accurate unless they are given to Man by some divine other worldly source?
Who is beginning to understand that by abandoning our rules (to writing) we might eventually be free?
Who can even begin to imagine the possibilities?
Who reading this now is already focusing on the negatives and preparing to respond nastily?
Who is afraid to have their world turned upside down and their (supposed) knowledge and the (relative) safety they feel in it-Challenged?
Who is prepared to accept this and write without fear of condemnation?
Who is just fine with the way things are?
Who wants freedom?
Who?

[/spoiler]
I'm sorry, I just can't restrain myself from saying this, but all the above makes several mistaken assumptions about language, the first being that language is created by a single individual. All naturally occurring and created languages are collaborative efforts (consciously or no). English (since you're railing against it), for example, is a created language formed as a means of communication between (if I recall correctly) three or four major distinct cultures (I believe they were the French, Welsh, Celts, and Scots; there were many other lesser tribes and such involved as well, mostly of Germaic descent as I recall). Each had their own separate languages, and yet there was one centralized power, and so, for administrative purposes, a single official language was created.

Considering that most created languages never take off and die out shortly after their inception, I'd say that English has done quite well for itself, mainly, due to its origins, because the English language is so inherently flexible. English is one of very few languages with an extensive history of using loan words. While loan words exist in other languages, they are nowhere near as commonplace as in English.

Also, due to its origins, the "rules" of the English language are more guidelines than anything, and they are subject to rapid change. Take spelling conventions, for instance. Or sentence structure. Compare writing from 1920 to writing from 1950 or 1870 and you'll quickly see a marked difference in how ideas are conveyed. There's also the matter of rules only being as constraining as you allow them to be, but that's another discussion. The point of the matter is, without rules, how would we be able to understand each other?

Let's say I were to decide one day that the word "girl" would mean "child" rather than just "female child"? You wouldn't know that, and so you'd assume that when I was talking about "that girl over there" that I meant the girl with the shovel instead of the boy with the truck. Without some basic guidelines, communication is impossible.

Now, bending these guidelines, on the other hand is another story. Shaping language into forms it has never been fashioned into before is something that is done all the time. Metaphors, anyone? Shifts in word meaning ring a bell? How about the dozens of newly coined words entering dictionaries each year? English, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the most flexible languages in existence. As writers, it is our prerogative to take advantage of this fact.

Rail against the "constraints" all you want -- language is simply a tool, and like all tools, it has some limitations. However, within those limitations are nigh endless possibilities, not to mention that there's always the option to alter the tool or switch to another.

Besides, language isn't the true limiting factor here -- it's everyone's inability to instantly understand one another. That is why communication exists, after all; language is just one form of it.

Have you ever thought of how we would communicate without language?

Kyllorac, if I try to see this from your point of view, it makes a little sense. You don't suggest complete removal of the commas, rather a different placement. This is understandable. I've read where you've suggested moving the comma after the adjacent word and these minor changes really do affect the Work in a positive way. If I did that it would not change my Work, but would make it a little better on the reader. This is of course always a good thing. For that, you have my gratitude. Don't take this lightly, gratitude from me is equivalent to the sum of all the worlds gold and more. I wasn't planning on editing this particular Work to accommodate the inappropriate changes others have suggested, but I will incorporate your suggestions in my next revision.

On another note, "try not to bite the hand that feeds you?" Are you suggesting that your advise is helpful? Of course I just gave you praise but in your review you still failed to take into account what I said in my previous responses. My compliance here should be viewed as a way of letting readers know I do take what they suggest into consideration. However, this doesn't make you or any other reviewers any less wrong. The mere suggestion your being actually helpful is blasphemous. That would be the equivalent of you YWS reviewers giving me pennies when I have a safe full of millions. Your pennies would go unheeded, better tossed in a wishing well somewhere.

Do you think that because someone has given you praise along the way, that because you read a book, took a class, or attended a lecture on literary devices that this makes you capable of judging what is good and bad? Are such literary devices the basis for determining what is good or bad writing whether than content itself? If this were so, than we as a race are truly doomed. All these reviews are basically the same: That this doesn't read right. What is right anyway? Whoever taught you about Right, obviously wasn't qualified. This is a malleable term with a malleable definition. Right should be viewed in relation to morality and ethics and human behavior whether than general writing, well fictional writing at least. I have to say something, to everyone judging my works saying that one thing or another is right or wrong. Unless it is stated or implied by God as right or wrong, than it does not require adherence.

Example: "This would be like me demanding you get hit in the head every time you come visit me. This is how it should be because we've always done it this way. I mean, it just makes sense. Please stop wining about it because I'm only trying to help you. Not getting hit on the head is just, well, wrong."

But never mind, I know this falls on deaf ears. Contrary to belief, I'm not upset, just trying to present a different perspective. From my point of view it is an injustice to demand revision of someones work because the demander believes its supposed to be written otherwise. If we were talking about me conveying factual events as otherwise, than I would understand, there's no malleability there. But this my creation. I decide the rules. If I created a flying car, would you tell me that "Its awfully good, but er, its just needs wheels and doesn't need to fly"?

I can't help when reading a response but think to myself: "These people are wrong and I'm right. Don't they see this? Whats the problem here?"

But then, I think this is the same thing everyone thinks when reading MY posts: "Whats wrong with this guy, has he been drinking?"

Therefor they post another response further cementing their beliefs. This is fine and natural. Furthermore, the fact we disagree is also fine and natural. But I won't respond further, I was never one to argue and I have done so more here than in my life. i am perfectly capable of writing the way everyone suggests I write, I know the rules quite well. I just don't believe in many of them. Many I find offensive and my views on them won't change. One thing I never do however, is tell anyone that something is right or wrong. Its not my place, no mater how I feel, and I don't believe anyone can do this. There are simply to many variables in the decision making process.

I DO hope everyone who even finds the courage to sit and write, rather it be by rules or not, becomes successful in some way, because then everyone would be happy. That is the most important thing and I hope the focus remains on that point rather than any other. On that note, I'm done with this. I thank everyone in their attempts to help, no matter how misguided they might have been. No one would take the time to sit and write a detailed review unless they truly cared..unless they were just spiteful, and I don't believe anyone here is.

Wishing everyone at least one novel on bookshelves somewhere,

DSR

Fair enough. Though do keep in mind that I think everyone's critiques were meant to be constructive and even style has its limits, but whatever, I digress. To each his own.

PaperMoon

pretty cool! It was pretty interrsting, It had perfect ryhming, the plot and the them was superb! But what I did not like is that it was pretty short and it is kinda weird when you describe rocks like humans. Anyways you deserve a star.