Time, Time, Time.

So. This is my first poem in more than a year, so...stab it. And make sure you do a thorough job of eet.

Time, Time, Time

Time is deceptive,
Unmanageably repressing,
It stirs its way through your veins,
Slowly murdering your body
With every conceivable second.

There is a sort of literature,
Where it presumes to call itself
A god, Chronos the Father
When it’s really only your mother
Nagging at you till you’re dead.

It runs fast when you’re slow
And vice versa, it defies
You when you shake your fist at it,
Leaving you hairless and toothless--
In the end, you’re six feet under.

He takes away youth after a fashion
Of being merciful, a liar’s promise.
Never trust Time, never bow to it
For that is really what it wants,
A faithless semblance of slavery.

Nay, rather, do as I tell you,
Take a baton--not a scepter,
For it makes one greedy--
And rule over Time with
The iron hand of a tyrant.

CelticaNoir,

I've already talked to you about the general things so for right now I'm just going to nitpick, simply because there's always room for improvement. Let's begin? ^^;

In every sort of literature, ***
It does presume to
Call itself a father,
When it%u2019s really your mother
Nagging at you till you%u2019re dead. death?

*** I feel like for this line here, you should make a direct allusion. Instead of saying "in literature" - is there a specific poem, or quote that you can reference? Remember specifics are always better than generalities, especially in poetry! Poetry aims for precision, so the more precise you can be, the better.

It goes fast when you%u2019re slow
And vice versa, it defies

Not a fan of the use of "vise versa" and I know you can come up with a better verb than 'goes'

Leaving you hairless and toothless--

Loved this imagery and the transition to the consequent line. Very nice here.

For that is really want it wants,
A faithless semblance of slavery.

Loved this line. I feel like I get what you're trying to say in this stanza - but something is not quite right. There is a lack of clarity in the previous lines when you talk about taking away youth after a fashion. Is "after" the right word?

Loved the ending stanza, I felt that made it an enjoyable read for me. Great job! Would love to read more poetry from you.

~ As always Audy

I think, deep in your heart of hearts (or maybe not so deep if the Author's Note is any indication), you know this isn't great, or even good, poetry.

Let's take the first stanza:

Time is deceptive,
Unmanageably repressing,
It stirs its way through your veins,
Slowly murdering your body
With every conceivable second.

Now, imagine someone reading it aloud for the first time. It's just not happening, at least not without some serious stumbling. Words such as "unmanageably" are simply unwieldy, especially without an established rhythm to help ease such a mouthful of a word along. There is also the matter of how you use such words in an unwieldy fashion, as well, which simply reinforces their awkwardness.

How, exactly, can "unmanageably repressing" be visualized? It cannot because "unmanageably repressing" is inherently abstract, two words of unwieldy length that the reader was lead to believe would make the how of time being deceptive more concrete. Instead, the how of time's deception is glossed over, forgotten, in lieu of this mouthful of a line that makes little sense when compared to the rest of the stanza.

In fact, the first stanza has no unity of ideas within it. Time is deceptive. Time is "unmanageably repressing". Time stirs through veins. Time murders one's body with time.

The last idea in particular makes little sense as you are characterizing time as itself, much as one could say that blue is blue, a dog is a dog, or X is X. It is ultimately the opposite of descriptive and only appears to be so to one who is already intimately familiar with the concept of what X is. As the writer of the poem, you have that advantage; your readers, however, do not.

Looking over the rest of the poem, this lack of unity in ideas, a lack of linkages and progression between them, pervades and magnifies the lack of description. This poem fails in the most basic of poetic purposes: describing the subject. It fails, too, in eliciting any emotion or greater contemplation simply because there is little coherent here to contemplate or feel strongly about.

You use adjectives as crutches, it seems to me, but adjectives, no matter their apparent aesthetic appeal and designation as descriptive words in grammar, are meaningless if not used properly, and they are not used properly here, especially not within the first stanza. Adjectives are only as descriptive as their context, and right now, the context surrounding each adjective is so vague as to be nonexistent. The adjectives are simply there, meaningless, because the nouns they modify and the verbs nearby are bland and generic, essentially meaningless themselves. There is no unique combination of them, no precision to them. They simply are, and simply being is not enough to make a poem memorable or poetic.

The lack of coherency in ideas also makes for very rough reading as it destroys any semblance of flow (not that there was much of one, if any, to begin with). The line breaks are placed in the strangest of places, and I have to wonder if you actually though about how this piece would sound if read aloud by one who had never before seen this piece. As one who attempted to read this aloud, I can tell you that the reading is very awkward and the opposite of intuitive.

Try paying more attention to how your poem sounds as well as how the ideas connect. In addition, pay more attention to what each word means in the context of the words that surround it, and stop relying so heavily upon grammatically-designated descriptive words. Exactness of vocabulary, precision in construction, and a wider scope of such devices as simile, metaphor, and analogy will make for a more vivid, descriptive, and accessible piece.