Ownership

You say you own something; that only you can access it. But, in truth, what can you own?

The forest shall always be wild, no matter how much it is taken over. Old oaks, rushing streams, the new growth of saplings and ferns— all of it is still wild. You can not control where ferns grow, where all the oaks have taken root. The wind blows seeds every which way. Animals carry seeds away. The Earth made some soil fertile, some rocky. Some plants will thrive in one place, others, other places. Nature, then, made the choice of where things will grow.

Even a garden is wild, and a garden is Nature tamed. Can you control what shapes the flowers take? Or when they sprout and bloom? No. You hope for the best that you’ll like it, but all good gardeners know that that’s not always the case.

But ownership is available. It seems to go against Nature, but, it’s true. And, this goes past things that are human made. What one can truly own, force to bend to their will entirely, is what people think defies all logic. What nobody could truly take over.

What is it people can own? People can own a human soul.

For kind words buy flattery, and kind deeds buy trust. Flattery begins dependence, trust is a two-way path.

Dependence is what you see in others, but hardly ever see in yourself. Have you ever notice how you crave one person? That person makes you feel like somebody. Somebody worth remembering. But that remembering is like a cake: a wonderful treat but never your main diet.

Trust is the two-way street. Down one way, friendship, down the other— death. This death is hardly ever seen, but even if you cannot see it with your eyes, you know it is there. The person’s words only speak of betrayal; the person’s actions are only those of hopelessness. Even though they are alive physically, their soul… Their very soul is dead.

Look at what you own. Look at what owns you. Take a lesson from Nature, and let nobody claim your soul.

Beautiful.

...and part of everything is where it, and none may really be separate

...word like one view, out of the rest

...and in this form, it is so small

...so that it is all

with them...

As requested my dear <3

I like this very much in places because it's pretty and sweet but there's areas where the reasoning feels weak or misguided and the tone drops every now and then which takes away from the overall effect. I'll try to point out where you need changes first:

You say you own something; that only you can access it. But, in truth, what can you own? [This could be stronger and firmer. At the moment it's a little too vague/ short. I'd suggest something along the lines of: 'You claim possession to many an item but by definition, should that not mean that only you have access and the power to control where it's moved, what it does? In truth, what can you own?']

The forest shall always be wild, no matter how much it is taken over. Old oaks, rushing streams, the new growth of saplings and ferns— all of it is still wild. You can not control where ferns grow, where all the oaks have taken root. The wind blows seeds every which way. Animals carry seeds away. [The resounding of seeds and way and away disrupts the flow. Maybe change the second to 'Animals leave prints on the ground'] The Earth made some soil fertile, some rocky. Some plants will thrive in one place, others, other places. Nature, then, made the choice of where things will grow.

Even a garden is wild, and a garden is Nature tamed. Can you control what shapes the flowers take? Or when they sprout and bloom? No. You hope for the best that you’ll like it, but all good gardeners know that that’s not always the case. [Very smooth transition to garden and lovely flow.]

But ownership is available. It seems to go against Nature, but, it’s true. And, this goes past things that are human made. What one can truly own, force to bend to their will entirely, is what people think defies all logic. What nobody could truly take over.

What is it people can own? People can own a human soul.

For kind words buy flattery, and kind deeds buy trust. Flattery begins dependence, trust is a two-way path.

Dependence is what you see in others, but hardly ever see in yourself. Have you ever noticed how you crave one person? That person makes you feel like somebody. Somebody worth remembering. But that remembering is like a cake: a wonderful treat but never your main diet.

Trust is the two-way street. Down one way, friendship, down the other— death. This death is hardly ever seen, but even if you cannot see it with your eyes, you know it is there. The person’s words only speak of betrayal; the person’s actions are only those of hopelessness. Even though they are alive physically, their soul… Their very soul is dead. [I think death is wrong. It may just be a matter of belief but it seems to me that a soul never dies while it is still within a body. It can become maimed but where you write of death, that feels over dramatic and just a little absurd. It doesn't fit your easy, gentle flow that carefully turns a person to your way of thinking. Get more opinions first but I think you should possibly re-think this section. Take it more gradually.]

Look at what you own. Look at what owns you. Take a lesson from Nature, and let nobody claim your soul.[Lovely.]

Questions

You ask a lot of rhetorical questions and they start to lose their effectiveness. You need to try and cut back just a little. One way would be to phrase questions as statements and you probably don't need me to tell you how to do that but feel free to pm me if you'd like a few tips.

Narrative Tone

It's beautiful and very well chosen. Gently persuasive but at the same time firm and not leaving any paths open upon which the reader can stray. However, as I mentioned above it changes a little at the end and not in a way I like. At the moment, it feels almost the same as the win to me so by all means it could get stronger, more insistent but aim for examples that are still more easily understood like the garden and the cake. This death of souls even if it is to be believed is hard to imagine, it's one of those things you can't put your finger on so you need to draw an analogy with something that's real to humans. Is it like the snapping of an elastic band, a thing that can take so much strain, always ready to snap back but then is suddenly broken when that pull too far is given?

Length

What you have here is good and it doesn't want to be too long but I feel that you're only just scraping the surface of this. I think you could go further, rule out other objects first before you move on to what you can actually own. Go for a wide variety perhaps and explain why one cannot own a music box. That one does not choose when it breaks or how long it survives. Then that would suggest the query of does a soul not break/ die? And you could answer no. The body may break and the body may die but the soul lives on, the soul is still to be controlled. The body may no longer be able to walk but the soul still functions, in a look from the eyes, a word, a touch. I'm sure you could think of other arguements too.

Keep up the good work!

Heather xx

Rosey! =D

Sorry for the delay. ^^; I went to school a couple days ago, and plop goes the homework into my lap. It was intense. oO

I'm sorry I won't be of much help. I say this because Heather beat me to this. xD

You say you own something; [no comma] that only you can access [s]it[/s]. But, in truth, what can you own?

I like the concept of your hook, but it needs some work. It sounds too blunt and thin. Buff it up; put some meat on these bones. Perhaps I'm thinking more of an essay, but I think the introduction/beginning to this piece could be more eye-catching, not necessarily lengthy. Even by just starting with, Is your dog really yours? would get the reader's attention.

Our intro sentence here is sitting on the fence between a paragraph and a simple sentence. xD Simple sentences are usually more suspenseful, dramatic, whatever the word I'm thinking of is. It's short, sweet, and to the point; it makes the reader think about the question, and before they know it, they're involved in your piece. ^_~

The forest shall always be wild, no matter how much it is taken over. Old oaks, rushing streams, the new growth of saplings and ferns— all of it is still wild. You can not control where ferns grow, where all the oaks have taken root. The wind blows seeds every which way. Animals carry seeds away. The Earth made some soil fertile, some rocky. Some plants will thrive in one place, others, other places. Nature, then, made the choice of where things will grow.

Your sentence structure is strange and rather confusing here. This sentence is the biggest culprit, but it's one of the few sentences in this paragraph:

Some plants will thrive in one place, others, other places.

The commas don't make it look good. XD I don't really like it; I really want to stick words in there to get rid of the second comma: Some plants will thrive in one place, and others will in other places. I know what tone you're going for though, so let me think this one through...

Some plants will thrive in one place; others--other places.

Perhaps it's just redoing the punctuation probably. Even my sentence there looks weird, but the wording is just weird, so there's not much we can do. The commas do way too many tasks though to make sense in the original sentence. *shrug*

Even a garden is wild, and a garden is Nature tamed. Can you control what shapes the flowers take? Or when they sprout and bloom? No. You hope for the best that you’ll like it, but all good gardeners know [s]that[/s] that’s not always the case.

Sometimes you just gotta read the sentence both ways to consider whether having two of the same words together like this or not. ^_~

The last sentence is actually written strangely anyway. I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think sense is occurring here. xD It sounds like the gardeners either know it's not always the case "that you'll like it" or know it's not always the case that "they sprout and bloom." It can go in a number of ways, so I think rephrasing the last sentence would do well.

But ownership is available. It seems to go against Nature, but, [no comma] it’s true. And, [no comma] this goes past things that are human-made. What one can truly own, force to bend to their will entirely, is what people think defies all logic. What nobody could truly take over.

What is it people can own? People can own a human soul.

This deserves a lot more attention than it's getting. It needs flashing lights, a theme song, red carpet--the whole shebang! Unnnfortunately, writers don't have much to work with. We have italics, we have Enter keys--Oh! Use the enter key! If we separate these two sentences into their own paragraphs, it would be a bit more dramatic. ^^

For kind words buy flattery, and kind deeds buy trust. Flattery begins dependence, [semi instead] trust is a two-way path.

Dependence is what you see in others, [no comma] but hardly ever see in yourself. Have you ever [s]notice[/s] noticed how you crave one person? That person makes you feel like somebody. Somebody worth remembering. But that remembering is like a cake: a wonderful treat but never your main diet.

The underlined question doesn't match the style you write with.

Trust is the two-way street. Down one way, [dash instead?] friendship, [semi instead] down the other— [close this space] death. This death is hardly ever seen, but even if you cannot see it with your eyes, you know it is there. The person’s words only speak of betrayal; the person’s actions are only those of hopelessness. Even though they are alive physically, their soul… Their very soul is dead.

Look at what you own. Look at what owns you. Take a lesson from Nature, and let nobody claim your soul.

I like the end. ^_^

--------------------------------

Okey-dokey!

I thought this was thin. The message is great, but there's little support; and you seem to resort to questions when transitioning from one thought to the next. Not straight away, mind, but you use them an awful lot and it's can be distracting. xD You surely know of other devices to use like parallel structure, repetition, metaphors, etc. Perhaps some ideas come to mind. ^^

I think the transition from the beginning to the end needs some work. We start off wondering what we own and you telling us we don't own anything we think we own. (Confusing, nay? XD) Then somehow we jump to how we own souls. I totally didn't see that coming, and I think some foreshadowing would be good, even if it's another rhetorical question. xD

Those are my only concerns though! I found it very interesting to read. I haven't really thought about it. Well, I mean, I did, but not in this way: how no one really owns anything, and that we own souls? It's a very new idea to me. I enjoyed reading it! ^_^

Hope I helped.

Keep writing!

Jabber, the One and Only!