Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
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.
139,567 Literary Works • 672,608 Reviews
I'm wondering why you wouldn't break this apart: the poem is read so fast without breaks that it's distracting. This breaking could at least slow it down. Now, I questioned whether I wanted to review this for a while and that's because you have some decent parts that I love and some other parts that I don't. One of the things I just don't like is how you refer to love's guts just to go into a broader term of 'parts.' Why? If you're going to compare love to something that has guts you should at-least have it make sense. If we don't know what the guts are too or what your pulling out of what it is impossible for us to get a decent image out of it. So the imagery is really sloppy and the attention to true details could make this poem better in my opinion.
These are sort-of in the same ballpark. It just doesn't make any sense literally and it's to weak figuratively.
Also, it gets very wordy so if you work on cutting things that are not as strong and the things that distract then it could help.
I won't just say I like it, I can click like for that, but forgive me if my analyzations aren't he best. Firstly, I believe this poem means love is what you want it to be, something that even the space between land can't quell. I also think you're telling a story. True love may not always be a tangible thing, which probably is contradicting, since emotion is intangible, but it is something that is made and grows. Is that it?
I read it. I liked it for its purposefulness and its straightforward direction. It's not particularly thought-provoking in that sense, but subtlety is more of a literary virtue than a philosophical one anyway, so who am I to criticize.
In future revisions, look to add clarity to this already solid piece. Cut out redundancies and sharpen your concepts using concision rather than clouding them with abstractions that serve no purpose outside of ostentation. You'll find yourself with a shorter poem, but one that is clearer and stronger and potentially deeper.
Thanks for this.