Young Writers Society

Because a flame is more than heat,
And wax is more than oil.
Keeping alive is quite the feat,
When surrounded by tur-moil.

What because? What is the result of that because?
"Quite the feat". I think you could phrase that better, make it less cheesy sounding. "Quite the [anything]" has that kind of feel.
Turmoil is one word.

The smoke is most eminent,
Now that the wax is gone.
Only one thread holds repent,
For a flame's silhouette is gone.

I would find a new word for wax; you can only use an uncommon word so many times, and in this case once would be a good limit, especially since yo use it twice in two consecutive stanzas.
"Only one thread holds repent". That thought seems incomplete. You finish the sentence with "for flame's silhouette is gone", using "for" as if it ought to be the explanation of the first part if the sentence. Only it isn't.

A bitter breeze kills last hope,
For the flame and ember die.
A red glow moans and mopes,
Then, grey meets black sky.

"Kills the last hope" I think. Adding "for the flame and ember die" is a little obvious. Just the first part of the sentence implies the second part, and I think that's enough.
Put a period in place of the comma after "mopes".

In a spirit's Symphony they dance,
Melodically entwined to each other.
Songs of love and music resonance,
A Symphony's sweet murmur.

I don't understand why you capitalize "symphony" here and elsewhere.
What spirit? Or at least, what kind of spirit. Calling it a "spirit's symphony" doesn't really tell us about the symphony because we don't know about the spirit.
Who are the "they" that dance?
I think you meant "resonate". Even if not, that's what it should be; otherwise you have a random noun which doesn't go there, in the middle of your sentence.

The spirits raise towards more and more,
They mix together in light and Harmony.
Reaching, dreaming, right to the core,
So that none could forget Angel's Symphony.

"Spirits". In the previous stanza you only had one spirit. If you meant more than one in the previous stanza, then it would be " spirits' ".
More and more what? And there should be a period in place of the comma after "more". Or a semi-colon.
"Right to the core" sounds like a forced rhyme. The core of what? The core of themselves? They're reaching right to the core of themselves? Something just doesn't come off right, and gives that particular rhyme an off feeling.
I don't see how the last two lines connect into one sentence. I don't see how the one results in the other. What are they reaching and dreaming for that results in them remembering this Symphony?

I think you should describe the symphony itself more, and what it means... or, not exactly what it means, but what it means for the subjects of the poem.

I think you change topic in the 3'rd stanza too abruptly. You have no transition from talking about the flame and the candle to talking about these spirits and a Symphony. I really can't make a connection between the two. Is there a connection? Because of so, then you can just make a couple simple mentions of the spirits or the Symphony within the first three stanzas and that will make everything smoother when you change subjects. As it stands, they could be divided into two completely separate poems.

I think making that transition smoother would help get across the meaning of your poem in general. The one would help explain the other. If I take the first three stanzas by themselves, I understand them. If I take the last two stanzas by themselves I mostly understand them, though I don't know who the spirits are. But when I'm reading the whole poem together, I know that they have to go together somehow, because they're in the same poem. I just don't see how.

That I think is the biggest flaw in the poem. Structurally it's very good; you only have one potential flaw in the rhyme scheme, which I already pointed out; I really like the imagery in the 2'nd and 3'rd stanzas. And I like that you used the word "melodically".

Another sound poem, with just a couple wrinkles where content is concerned, that I'm sure you can iron out no problem.

A pleasure to review, as always.

Hello Jon! June here!

I haven't reviewed you in what seems like ages.

Because a flame is more than heat,

And wax is more than oil.

Keeping alive is quite the feat,

When surrounded by tur-moil.

(turmoil is one word; it's not helping anything much having the syllables divided, dear.)

To begin, you're sacrificing for rhyme. I find this a common issue in your works. You have good ideas, you can write well, but you always seem to try to squeeze it into a rhyme suit that is just too small.

I don't like the opening with "Because". It feels like something should precede this, dear, so that "because" actually connects an idea with something later. With this beginning, it's feeling like a half thought; something that needs to be continued.

It doesn't relate, I'm afraid. You're basically saying, because fire and wax [a candle] it's hard to survive.

I'm not too sure about this; at first, I felt that keeping a candle alive is quite a tricky thing to do, but it's surrounded by turmoil. I could interpret this as wind and other things that want to put the candle out, but that's not a clear message.

In poetry, we don't need clear messages, but you're using very clear language. You're narrating the story to us, dear, so you should try to strive for a narration that is easy enough to comprehend.

The smoke is most eminent,

Now that the wax is gone.

Only one thread holds repent,

For a flame's silhouette is gone.

Here, I think that you're being too descriptive about this candle, dear. I don't think you should try so hard to force a description of remnants of a candle on us, because it sounds like you're stressing it. This is an entire stanza dedicated to rhyme, dear. Aside for the rhyme, we're not getting the greatest kick out of it.

A bitter breeze kills last hope,

For the flame and ember die.

A red glow moans and mopes,

Then, grey meets black sky.

You already implied that the flame is gone, silly.

I don't think a red glow [ember] can actually moan or mope. A fire/flame can possibly moan, and I know that this is figurative imagery, but, it's just not working.

By the grey meeting the black sky, I imagine that you're trying to imply that the wick [or whatever you call it] is dying and fading into the dark.
To speak oxymorons, I feel that you are being too descriptive and not being descriptive enough.

You're describing the candle too much. I'd imagine that the candle has to represent something, but you're not giving us enough to understand the representation. It's a bit far fetched to grab, dear; we're not really sure if the candle is representing something or if something is representing the candle.

In a spirit's Symphony they dance,

Melodically entwined to each other.

Songs of love and music resonance,

A Symphony's sweet murmur.

Here's where the poem takes a turn, but I'm not sure if things get better. This dance-- is it smoke to darkness? What music is playing?

I think that you should have introduced the music much, much earlier on, and then this stanza could be a "tying in" of all the elements mentioned before the final stanza. It's decent, Jon, but it's not great.

Basically, you are repeating yourself. You're saying they're joined in music [melody], with songs of love, and a symphony's song [murmur].

You need to expand.

Don't let yourself hold your ideas; let them hold you and expand, Jon. You're restricting yourself too, too much with rhyme-- I would love to see you try an unrhymed unstructured someday.

The spirits raise towards more and more,

They mix together in light and Harmony.

Reaching, dreaming, right to the core,

So that none could forget Angel's Symphony.

Who are the spirits?

You say spirit's melody in the previous stanza, implying that there is one; for plural, you would say spirits', with the apostrophe after.

Clarify yourself when you write, Jon. Don't leave room for the audience to question.


-

I can never stress the statement don't let the rhyme restrict you; restrict the rhyme enough. You're laying too heavily on it, Jon, not getting your message across clearly and effectively.

I can't say that this relates very well to Shina's novel. Having read the full thing, this is more abstract than her novel, and I think it needs to be simplified, Jon. Her novel pertains more to angels, destiny, hope, insecurities and such things like that.

With that said! I do like your ground idea. I only feel that it wasn't executed in the best way possible and could use some improvement.

Hope that helped!

June