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.
125,029 Literary Works • 672,781 Reviews
Hi again
I'm not sure why some people give you pointers or negative feedback, honestly. You have the best writing on the site, in my personal opinion. Again, well done, EXCELLENT piece. Better than the last.
Love your work <3
Catnip~
the first sentence is good.
The second sentence needs some work. First off, when you have something in something else, you typically have a flip side like you did at the beginning. There is no flip side in the second sentence. Mainly this is because you have words stitched in, which continues the description of the letter instead of actually saying something new or adding to the statement. It's kind of like saying: In a bar, the stool turned over from some drunken disorderly nut. In reality it needs to be more: In a bar, there is a stool turned over from some drunken disorderly nut.
The second stanza really confused me and the rhyming was forced. Blend it in better in order to really get the full effect of rhyming. I do like the sound of coins plunking into wishing wells, but I really don't see how that metaphor fits into the story, or what it is there to represent.
This confusion just continues because the last couplet makes no sense to me at all.
Reading this poem again, I have no idea who he is at the beginning of the second stanza, and that is a problem because that stanza is all about him. Is this person related to the speaker, is he a friend, lover, acquaintance, enemy? If I knew that, then I might be a little more inclined to understand what was going on in the poem. As it stands, he just has some really odd abstract relationship to me.
Also the last stanza, the couplet, ever really is what throws me off from understanding the sentence. We already have the confusion of would have to have been, which is a complex wording, and could/should be simplified, but there's an ever in there which interrupts the verb phrase. Have been is kind of like an infinitive, like have to. Putting ever between have been really just breaks things up, creates a split infinitive, and confusion.
Without that, I think it is saying that he would have to be asleep in order to rule over me?
How does that even relate to the poem?
The first stanza is saying that I am the best of the mourners, the one who does it the most. Then it is talking about why, a letter. Is he the writer of the letter? His coma-like state is a caution. Someone is telling on someone else, that doesn't seem to relate to the poem either. Then the couplet. The story just doesn't go any further that I can decipher, and that's frustrating in a poem. Try to be a little less cryptic in your poetry <3 You might find that it is easier to follow when you work with only one metaphor, like a town of weepers.
Quite interesting I believe this poem to be... In an odd way, deeply inspring. It's a very good literary work, don't give up on it.
I really like the whole concept of this. I think it flows well, except when it comes to:
"Hesitant tattletales
telling sadly of the spells
set deep as coins
plunked in wishing wells."
It's wording was a bit awkward to me with the passive tense and distracting of the whole meaning.
Also, though I really love the last two lines, it seem a bit wordy and awkward as well. Maybe just cutting it down to "He'd have to been under/ to be over me" would bring the point across stronger. Or something like that.
I enjoyed reading this, good work!