Warning: This work has been rated 16+ for violence.
I
love the sight of fire, how
it
looks like it has a will of its own,
swaying
and waving in a million ways.
It’s
a child of the sun, glorious
in
its brilliance, blinding those
who
are mesmerized by it
if
it wants to.
Imagine
the thrill surging
through
my body as I hold it
in
my hand, the power that is wild
like
a beast which I can master over time.
No
wonder I love to use humans
as
sacrifices to it. No wonder I feel alive
when
I see their bodies burned,
skin
and bones and flesh helpless
to
the heat of its wrath.
Fire
and I, we are twins – born
to
destroy, allured by authority
and
superiority. Hatred is our fuel,
unleashed
to those who come in our way.
I
love it when the subject of
my loath,
who dares to disagree with me,
turns to ash, gone from
the world. I mean,
aren’t
we all?
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,021 Literary Works • 672,740 Reviews
May I just say that as a pyromaniac, this makes my heart really happy? Yes? Okay, glad that's out of the way.
I love the lyrical feel of this poem and how freely it flows. It reminds me a lot of how fire flows - effortless and rapid. One thing I draw into question - and this is purely a personal opinion - is that you're writing about the power of a force of nature, and yet you write about being its master. You make the case for one, and it's detrimental to the other. Something of a Catch 22 you place yourself in there.
Moving on to structure! You do a beautiful job of crafting lines and inserting line breaks, so far that something that usually bothers me, irregularity of stanza length, is not a problem in this piece. However, the last stanza and line threw me off. A LOT. You went from a flowing, lyrical feel to something that felt ripped out of place and forced to the nth degree. Again, that's just personal opinion, but it really bothered me.
Overall, great job, and keep writing!
Lightsong!
I love the concept behind the poem, any kind of poem that dares to dive into something taboo or go dark places in order to explore it further - I mean that is always interesting! I think the title lured me and set a certain expectation. If I see "appeal" then I am expecting a persuasive piece, something that was going to persuade me towards the side of an arsonist, so I was hooked from the title! Throughout the poem itself - there is a voice here of an arsonist, and I think woven throughout are also hints of the fascination and almost mesmerizing tone of the arsonist. Those are cool techniques, but I'm not sure if by the end I was sufficiently connected to the narrator, nor persuaded to his/her ends.
it looks like it has a will of its own,
I really loved this line and I found it really interesting. There's this idea inherent in the title together with the first line, that we were going to explore a person's love for flames. So right off the bat, we know this person loves flames a lot. But the "why" of it is what is worth exploring and I am curious. So this line grabbed me partially because it answered it, without answering it -- almost as if I found what was not being said more interesting than what was said outright. I get that flames look like they have a will of it's own -- but why does that aspect of fire interest the narrator in particular? I got to wondering why the narrator admires this hidden "will" in the flames.
In my head, I wondered perhaps the narrator has NO will of their own, and so admires this thing that DOES have a strong will. I think that's interesting to explore. If in future edits, you wish to open up the poem more, this could be a great opportunity to provide an insight to the narrator's personality, if only because it might give a reader the chance to empathize the narrator more? Not only in describing that the narrator admires the will of the flames - but describing how a person could see themselves as lacking in that department, and so turning to that becomes an act of inspiration or strength for the narrator? That's up to you!
swaying
and waving in a million ways.Say it once, say it right? Waving IS swaying, and "in a million ways" doesn't tell us much. We already know what fire IS - there's no need to describe how a fire is like -- rather, spend these lines describing what makes a fire different to this narrator's point of view.
Could it be
"swaying in dance of power and grace" ? // and so suggesting a practice and admiration?
"swaying its hypnotic moan" // and so suggesting a mesmerizing effect?
"waving a friendly finger, beckons to me" //and so suggesting a friendship?
It can go many, many different ways- so experiment with what you want to build on and ignore the aspects of fire the reader already knows!
I love this connection, it has this kind of godlike praise in these lines!
I love the cadence of this stanza - the subtle rhyme as the narrator gets more and more in control, that was a really neat build up!
This line, however, does not connect at all, and actually comes out of nowhere. There is a buildup of the power that fire brings yes - but arsonists usually just like burning in general, so burning of things, and while there are people who burn other people - there was no build-up to this line. The anger and wrath or vengeance or hatred for other people, why not build that up before we get to this line? The angry tone of the piece doesn't come until after this line in fact. This doesn't land and so the meglomaniac aspect of the piece feels very weak. I was there with the narrator all up until this line where I can't help but wonder what happened to him/her to make them feel this way? It's because I don't know that it doesn't impact me at all.
I think the last two stanzas are well crafted, but I think the build-up of the hatred and anger for other people needs to be included well before we get to those lines for them to make a bigger impact.
I hope this helps!
~ as always, Audy
Hey, Light!
I'm going to review this in preparation for National Poetry Writing Month
because I plan to review a poem a week that month oh no what have I done. Let's see if I can use my own guidelines from the review contest to help write a halfway decent poetry review...Things I liked
You've got some good imagery going on here. You'd don't use a lot of figurative language to spice it up but rather let the imagery of a fire and its potential destruction speak for itself. I also like the last stanza, because I think it gives the poem a more disturbing aspect than "here's a guy who likes fire way too much." A lot of people absolutely would love to see the people they don't like crushed underfoot, destroyed, so it kind of turns the poem into "here's a guy who likes fire way too much and you're no different."
Flow
I think this *kind of* falls under flow, but I wanted to first point out a few weirdly phrased spots that made me stumble.
In the first part in bold, the phrasing of "to use humans as sacrifices to it" rings oddly in my ear. You could simplify this with "to sacrifice humans/to it." I think what felt off about it was that you used a convoluted phrase to say something that can be said more simply. In the second part in bold, the word "to" threw me off. Usually I hear "helpless in..." until the person who is helpless is doing something. Like,
"helpless to do anything but watch..."
"helpless in the face of his anger..."
If that makes sense? I'm not sure it's technically incorrect - it just made me stumble a bit.
Because the last line needs to agree with the first line in this section, "aren't" should be "don't." Like "I love it when the subject...who dares to disagree with me turns to ash. Don't we all?"
Unleashed "on" those who...I'd say go with either "come our way" or "get in our way."
I'm pretty sure "loath" should be "loathing." It reads oddly to me as it is right now.
Clarity/Conciseness/Something like that
So this ties into flow a little bit, but these spots didn't trip me up while reading so I'm putting them under a different header.
I feel like "if it wants to" here is meant to make the stanza flow better, but it detracts from the meaning. You're talking about how fire has this power to destroy - even though you're doing it from the viewpoint of someone to whom that obviously appeals - but "if it wants to" is like "eh, it's not always destructive." Which, okay, it's not, but shhhh. If you really want people to feel this fear of the narrator and the fire, make the fire's power of destruction absolute rather than "if it wants to."
This was another weak spot to me, because of "imagine." Nah, don't tell us "imagine." Just describe it! I think you'll have to play around with this one a little bit in order to delete the "imagine" but maintain the flow. A good place to start is probably "a thrill surges through my body as I hold it."
The message
So I know from your comments on this that this is meant to paint a picture of destruction in the world and how hatred leads to destruction. You've got a start with getting that message across by tying the narrator to the audience in the last line, but I do think this message could be stronger. Specifically, you spend time at the start of the poem having the narrator discuss how he loves fire, without tying it to his hatred. If you made his hatred - and his love for fire because it destroys those he hates - clearer at the start of the poem, this might go some length toward achieving your overall goal. You might also consider alluding to some real-life events involving fire used to destroy people considered "the enemy" by the people using the fire, although I'm not as sure about that. I think it would just potentially give the poem more clarity.
Finally, I'd suggest giving this a rating for mature content/violence since there's this explicit discussion of arson/using fire to destroy people. It's not explicit enough that I'd mark it 18+, but I definitely think it could use some sort of rating.
Thanks for the review. This makes me feel better a little bit.
I'm glad
Thanks for sharing this description of a the inner reasonings of a criminally insane person who finds pleasure in burning humans because he admires the quality of fire and decides to stupidly worship and identify himself with it. It helps to illustrate once more that the ability to reason doesn’t necessarily make a human being any less of an animal. That reasoning can be employed, as it has throughout the history of mankind, to justify the most hideously gruesome and wicked iof behavior. In short, that reasons come a dime a dozen. That’s the lesson I derived from the poem whether that was the lesson intended or not.
Of course this isn’t to say that all readers will react the same way. Another reader, on the fringe of insanity, or perhaps borderline moronic, might be mesmerized into trying his hand at it and sacrifice his pet dog or his baby brother. After all, one never knows the mental state of the person who reads our compositions.
Do you want me to write about unicorns and rainbows instead?
This poem, above all else, is a satire. The last line should make that clear. The intent to burn someone is based on hatred, and how many people in the news have shown to be that? American soldiers in Middle East countries for example don't mind bombing people just because they hate them. What I want to emphasize here is hatred leads to destruction. The prospect of power makes someone hungry for it to the point where they worship it. Those who support arming guns for example don't realize it's the cause of death for many. What's so different between a gun and a fire? Which one is immediately lethal?
Perhaps I fail to get that across but don't you dare project your thoughts to other readers. You don't represent them all and if you stick with your tendency to censor literary for fear others would be impacted negatively by it then we all should be confined in a white room to be safe. The fact is, not everyone reading 50 Shades of Gray wantS to try BDSM. The world is filled with cruel, hating people and my poem is a tame preparation for the young ones to who are really out there. How hate can turn someone into a monster.
I suggest you ponder on your tendency to correct things and assumption on what should and should not be read by others. Frankly, this review is useless and a personal attack to me.
"Do you want me to write about unicorns and rainbows instead?"
Response:
What you write is entirely up to you. I just thought that you were attempting to descibe the workings of a sick mind. In fact, it seemed similar to a short story posted here some months ago that ends in the same way and is almost identical to your poem and was indeed describing insanity.
--
Statement: This poem, above all else, is a satire.
Response:
Sorry but that's not the way it came accross to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
--
Statement: The last line should make that clear.
Response:
Really? To me it seemed like a descriptiobn of the mind of some delusional maniac believing that veryone shares his sick fascination with fire.
--
Statement: ....don't you dare project your thoughts to other readers. You don't represent them all and if you stick with your tendency to censor literary for fear others would be impacted negatively by it then we all should be confined in a white room to be safe.
Surmising how other readers or even some readers might respond to any given poem is part of the reviewing process. LOL!
That's reducto ad absurdom, my friend. Those are your thoughts not mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
--
Statement: I suggest you ponder on your tendency to correct things and assumption on what should and should not be read by others. Frankly, this review is useless and a personal attack to me.
Response
I have no tendency to correct things ubnless they need correction.
To be honest, there are things which certain people and certain age groups should not be allowed to read. That's why we have classifications to warn the readers of contyent that might be offensive. Also, there are people who have lost loved ones to arson. I shouldn't imagine that they would be offended? I shouldn't imagine an arsenist being encouraged by the poem? Or some mentally uinstable person being tyempted to do exactly what your pem describes as a great pleasure abd as fascinating? Really? There are age category restrictions that at least could have been uysed because of excessive violence.
As for your taking offense, sorry you feel that way. I was only intending to provide helpful feedback based on content and the manner that it was expressed.
"Do you want me to write about unicorns and rainbows instead?"
Response:
What you write is entirely up to you. I just thought that you were attempting to describe the workings of a sick mind. In fact, it seemed similar to a short story posted here some months ago that ends in the same way and is almost identical to your poem and was indeed describing insanity.
--
Statement: This poem, above all else, is a satire.
Response:
Sorry but that's not the way it came accross to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
--
Statement: The last line should make that clear.
Response:
Really? To me it seemed like a descriptiobn of the mind of some delusional maniac believing that veryone shares his sick fascination with fire.
--
Statement: ....don't you dare project your thoughts to other readers. You don't represent them all and if you stick with your tendency to censor literary for fear others would be impacted negatively by it then we all should be confined in a white room to be safe.
Surmising how other readers or even some readers might respond to any given poem is part of the reviewing process. LOL!
That's reducto ad absurdom, my friend. Those are your thoughts not mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
--
Statement: I suggest you ponder on your tendency to correct things and assumption on what should and should not be read by others. Frankly, this review is useless and a personal attack to me.
Response
I have no tendency to correct things ubnless they need correction.
To be honest, there are things which certain people and certain age groups should not be allowed to read. That's why we have classifications to warn the readers of content that might be offensive. Also, there are people who have lost loved ones to arson. I shouldn't imagine that they would be offended? I shouldn't imagine an arsonist being encouraged by the poem? Or some mentally unstable person being tempted to do exactly what your poem describes as a great pleasure and as fascinating? Really? There are age category restrictions that at least could have been used because of excessive violence.
As for your taking offense, sorry you feel that way. I was only intending to provide helpful feedback based on content and the manner that it was expressed.
This poem is entitled The Appeal of Arson. What do you expect from it? If you're going to be offended by a poem where it's blatantly obvious it's about arson, don't read it. Don't expect it to about firefighters putting out the fire. I'm not obligated to warn you about the content of the poem; poetry isn't about being educative, after all.
Also, how can you come to the conclusion someone might inspire from this to do it to their pet dog or baby brother? Did you actually read to whom the arsonist put his fire to? Like, seriously?
But then again, this comes from someone who has commented my other poem as 'gay agenda' that wants sympathy. I shouldn't be this surprise.
If indeed one is going to take umbrage because of a disagreement with something one writes then it might be best not to offer it up for review. The fact is that there are indeed people who have been seriously injured by fires set by arsonist. They have to live with those injuries for the rest f their lives. Their relatives have to deal with the disfigurement and the deaths. As a writer I am aware that such people exist and that my words might open up a serious emotional wound if I go about describing the pleasures of setting people on fire. That you refuse to acknowledged this obvious fact is entirely up to you. However, that you demand that a review ignore it is rather irrational.
As for my supposed review of a work that I allegedly tagged as mere homosexual propaganda, I really don't recall. Probably because it didn't hold that much importance to me. In any case, as a writer it would be irrational for me to expect everyone to agree to my sexual preferences or to agree that I have aright to strive to popularize such preferences.
In short, if indeed I am that sensitive to other people's opinions, then it would be best not to offer up my work for review.
I'm sensitive to YOUR review. Believe me, I have worse than this before, but this is the only one that succeeds to offend me greatly.
If you're a writer than thinks about what people think of your writing when writing it, then so be it. I'm more of the person who paste the idea I have in mind straight to the paper before it goes away.
Of course you don't recall; being straight yourself, you don't value is as important as I do.
Reading your review, you're clearly insensitive.
And don't apologize for blocking me when you think that should be the way it is. I'm blocking you for this I'm-right-about-everything review. I don't want to be associated with a homophobe.
If you wish to follow that modus operandi go ahead. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with you.
5 Criminals Who Say That Fiction Inspired Their Crimes
http://allthatsinteresting.com/criminal ... ed-fiction
Six people disagree with me and it all makes a whole lot of difference. Regarding your link:
This quote basically sums up my point. Erin Kelly talked about fiction; poetry is even a less popular form of creative writing. The fact is that books are hardly a factor that contributes to crime. I'm not sure why are you concern about something that is unlikely to happen.
Also, about ethic:
http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/ww ... thics.html
http://theconversation.com/ethics-and-writing-63399
Read these links and realize I didn't break any so-called writing ethic that you think I have. Geez.
Numbers that are as being described RELATIVELY quite low can eventually add up to thousands as time goes by. In any case, as I said, you are entitled to your opinion and to write in any manner that you choose. You are also entitled to care or not to care. Or care a lot or care a little. I am not challenging that right. You requested feedback and I provided how I feel about the piece as a reader not with the intention of deeply offending but with the intention to help as I do in all my reviews.
That number is for books/other entertainments, not poetry. Also, special treatment should be given to the minority who takes books seriously, not to the books themselves.
Thank you for your nonble attention but you should reflect on the way you review. You came across as condenscending and egotistical in it, and I didn't take that well. The fact that you think someone might inspire from this to apply it on their pet or sibling shows you didn't analyze each line equally. Do improve your reviewing and let us agree to disagree.
Have a nice day.
Ethics 101 and common sense should tell a person the contrary. Also, that's like saying that a war is OK because it only cost 1000 lives instead of millions. Every single life is precious and should be treated as such. If it isn't then according to ethical principles it is an immortality.
As fort my being condescending and egotistical, name-calling is considered a fallacy used by the desperate when they don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry, but no, my review stands as posted and I need not modify it in the least. It spoke about a possibility which my sources which I provided clearly demonstrated doers happen. Your poem gloated over human suffering and even invites others to have the same attitude. Then it tel the reader why it is a very enjoyable experience. I responded in a way because I disagree with that viewpoint or in even using that approach to get a point across because it might lead to loss of life.
You want to get angry about it? Very sad indeed. But as I said before, that is your choice.\\
BTW
you are the only person that has gotten angry over any of my reviews and I have given hundreds. All others thanked me and took my advice and did not interpret it as an attack nor did they resort to name-calling.
If indeed a person is extremely sensitive about disagree, with their work or on receiving advice that recommends something contrary to their modus operandi, then it's best not to request reviews.
BTW
It is common knowledge that children tend to imitate things that they see and hear or read about. It is also common knowledge that some psychopaths killed and tortured animals as children.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... gs-8753436
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadism
Also, please note that encouraging others to commit arson is a crime. The title of your poem even tells the reader to join in the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
Have a wonderful day as well.
Ethics 101 and common sense should tell a person the contrary. Also, that's like saying that a war is OK because it only cost 1000 lives instead of millions. Every single life is precious and should be treated as such. If it isn't then according to ethical principles it is an immortality.
As for my being condescending and egotistical, name-calling is considered a fallacy used by the desperate when they don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry, but no, my review stands as posted and I need not modify it in the least. It spoke about a possibility which my sources which I provided clearly demonstrated doers happen. Your poem gloated over human suffering and even invites others to have the same attitude. Then it tel the reader why it is a very enjoyable experience. I responded in a way because I disagree with that viewpoint or in even using that approach to get a point across because it might lead to loss of life.
You want to get angry about it? Very sad indeed. But as I said before, that is your choice.\\
BTW
you are the only person that has gotten angry over any of my reviews and I have given hundreds. All others thanked me and took my advice and did not interpret it as an attack nor did they resort to name-calling. If indeed a person is extremely sensitive about disagree, with their work or on receiving advice that recommends something contrary to their modus operandi, then it's best not to request reviews.
BTW
It is common knowledge that children tend to imitate things that they see and hear or read about. It is also common knowledge that some psychopaths killed and tortured animals as children.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... gs-8753436
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadism
Also, please note that encouraging others to commit arson is a crime. The title of your poem even tells the reader to join in the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
Have a wonderful day as well.