“But the cotton’s alight, dear,
and you’re much too charred to take that test.”
Pencil’s down, time’s up. My answer,
(scrawled in secretion against your stretched out skin)
is the only thing I know I hate to love.
“More sugar with your invisible ink, poppet?”
It’s the kind of stain that can’t be licked away
(in contrast to his wedding cake and her subsequent tears).
Accompanied by saliva transfusion and your lead conclusion,
I’ll bleach this, burned and brittle,
For you. It was all, it was always for you.
“Sweetums, what did I tell you about talking to strangers?”
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.
140,579 Literary Works • 673,526 Reviews
The dialogue is wonderful. I like the tone of it, as well as the tone of what's around it. Content seems a bit all over the place to me. Word choice, I can understand, but the context of the word choice is what I wonder about.
I think the part in bold is unnecessary, especially because the sound of "all" is repeated in "always".
Whence, I'm guessing you're Ed. You already know how I feel about this, but I'll flatter your ego anyways...BRILLIANT!
EDIT:
My comp had a stroke, the above was posted twice. Sorry :S
But they're not all parts of one poem! It's like a series of poems that tell a story.
It'd ruin it if they were together.
And in case you haven't noticed, I'm not so much a fan of points. I have a habit of donating them, so I didn't much appreciate that assumption
But yes, thanks for all the feedback. Especially Fand. You're awesome.
I'll be editing all three of these soon
WHENCE!
You are supposed to post all the parts TOGETHER. I mean, I like to have points and everything, but still! You post them together so that we can make connections with them at once. Like... if Wallace Stevens put his poetry in different places, I would probably kill him. So please, please, do NOT cut off the limbs of your poem by ruining the flow with a fumble for the link. You can do that with chapters, but for poetry? No. Post the parts together!
*grumbles*
I like this part.
<3. That is all.
I think the parentheses are a little unnecessary--it would work just as well in commas. And I'm a little iffy about the whole "secretion" thing. As an image, it just makes me go, "Wait, what?" Occasionally a good thing, yes. Not here.
I'm beginning to fall in love with these dialogue interruptions, Ed.
ZOMG. I love the third line. The second part of the last, though, strikes me as too pop-song-ish. It doesn't really work that well here.
I like the "What did I tell you about talking to strangers?" as a conclusion to this poem--it fits so nicely with everything else--but I'm very, very ambivalent (leaning towards critical) of "Sweetums." I get that you're using the condescending diminutives to make a point, and I love that. It's one of those clever tricks that makes Ed's poetry Ed's poetry. But "sweetums?" It's just far too colloquial, and too arbitrary. It doesn't fit here. Try using a different two-syllable diminutive: honey, darling, sweetheart, etc.
Oh, I'm back. Forgive me for that, as you know Ed-Dear, things are hectic right now ^^;
I loved how this, without telling a single thing, automatically told you it was an affair [of sorts?] It's something I will always envy about your poetry ^_~ You have this amazing talent to tell without telling the obvious. It's something I can never do.Ah, I love this. This has become one of the poems that, each time I reread it, I like it slightly more and I find new things to enjoy and giggle at.
I liked this line because of the contracts between "all" and "always" although it isn't really contrast, but I'm not sure of the word. and the Italics are perfect.
The only thing I struggle with it the line mentioned before [which, to clear things up, I do not dislike, I just find the syllables a bit hard for me to hear ><] and the "burning" or "Charring" I'm trying to understand it within the poem, trying to understand what it might really be [since you are a lover of double and hidden meanings] but I cannot find it. I like the visuals it creates, but I'm hoping it has more meaning behind it. I'd love if you clued me in ^_~
Bravo, Ed. See, this is why I love you! I tell you, you will write something amazing one day. And then you do. ^^
The "Rounded With A Sleep" part, sorry. I recognized the line (The Tempest is my favorite of Shakespeare's plays), and I was wondering why you chose it.
(For the record, the line Claudette didn't like was my favorite.)
I'm really glad you're writing parts to this, because It was too short! I wanted more.
I liked this, but it was too.. jumpy. Since it is all single syllable words, it just didn't work to read.I think I've understood this fairly well.
and, I have to finish this later, oy.
which part of the title?
Rounded With A Sleep Pt. 1: Something To Do With A Stripper's Name
"Rounded With A Sleep" = a piece of a famous Shakespeare quote. 'We are the stuff dreams are made on, and our life is rounded with a sleep' (something like that). "Pt. 1" = there'll be sequels. "Something To Do With A Stripper's Name" = Well, it's sort of a play on the fact that a Stripper's name doesn't matter. Beyond that, it's mainly because the victim is a stripper-of-sorts
Wow, I have no idea what's going on here. This poem reminds me of the song "Psycho Street," only without the skin-crawling creepiness. It's trippy and disjointed, which I'm assuming is what you were aiming for. I think it's like one of those weird dreams that jumps around and makes sense while you're dreaming it, but when you wake up makes you go "WTF?!"
The only think I'm not sure I like are the (parenthesis) around "(burned and brittle)." I think they work fine the other two times you used them.
I've gotta ask, though: why'd you give it that title?