The scientists have found a new form of carbon.
It exists only in the hearts of man, lining the valves and pumps.
They are saying it’s harder than diamonds.
We are harvesting hearts of the most hard-hearted men,
to crush and fracture diamonds.
They break so easy.
If the diamonds can be broken as easily as hearts,
what then do we set in a ring?
The hearts?
You cannot set a heart in metal,
for everyone to see.
Perhaps we no longer need either,
since love is even harder.
----
One day we’ll laugh at
the frailty of diamonds
compared to our hearts.
----
A/N: both of these poems express pretty much the same concept. In the first, I went more in-depth, but I felt that it was weaker and less eloquent altogether like it was really forcing the point and super cliche. The ending is expressly terrible. So I shortened it into a haiku-type thing, but I feel like that's too empty. What do you think? Any advice to make one or the other better? (The haiku-thing doesn't have to remain a haiku. I'm perfectly flexible with changing it.)
A/N #2: This was inspired by my chem book which talked a little bit about this: http://www.gizmag.com/new-superhard-form-of-carbon/20145/
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.
140,755 Literary Works • 673,687 Reviews
If you're looking for opinions, then I, personally, would choose the haiku over the poem (not that they both aren't very well done). I like the simplicity of it and I think that poems should be up for interpretation. It isn't the author's job to explain everything to reader: they have minds; they can think about it.
That being said, I think the message you're trying to make is wonderfully complex and heartfelt (no pun intended). Our hearts and the power of our love are stronger than diamonds, so why do we present gifts of diamond rings and necklaces to prove our devotion? We shouldn't have to, which is (I hope) the point you're making.
And I think it's lovely.
Both poems are very creative and your style of writing flowed nicely (except for in the final stanza of the first poem, but that can be easily cleaned up). I loved your imagery and your figurative language and, as I stated before, your message. Please, continue writing: I would love to hear more of your ideas
I like this. I read the article too, and that was interesting. I'm not going to butcher your poem, because I like it. Even though it doesn't rhyme (a big pet peeve of mine). I will however, interpret this poem as I see it.
Stanza 1: Nothing much going on here. You're just telling us of a new discovery (a cool one, might I add?).
Stanza 2: You provide imagery or illusion or something into this one. You're telling us that carbon (used to make diamond rings, I assume) is extracted from the broken hearts of men. I don't really like that concept, because guys that give rings to girls usually aren't owners of broken hearts.
Stanza 3: Ummm... if diamonds are easier to break than hearts, then rings should be made of hearts. I don't know. Could you clarify?
Stanza 4: Okay, this explains it a bit. Why should people bother with hearts and rings, if love is impossible to find.
Stanza 5 (haiku-thing): To me, this contradicts the entire poem. It seems like you're saying that love will prevail. Is that what this is saying? Is that what the poem's about?
This is a deep, reflective piece, worthy of a reader who understands.