waiting with countless others
to be taken and filled
or to fall.
The latter, though not ideal,
does have its attraction:
the satisfying sound
as you shatter;
the collective turn of heads;
the chance that when you're swept up
and binned into oblivion,
someone might get cut.
He could handle that,
the momentary relevance.
What shakes him is the fear
his fellows will soon have gone,
whilst he -- the slighted last --
remains alone.













Comments
"the chance that when you're swept up" seems a bit too long of a line given the length of your other lines. Maybe split it into two lines? I also suggest adding a colon after this: "What shakes him is the secret fear".
Other than that, I rather like your piece (which is actually rather rare of me to say about poems in "open form").
--
William Faulkner: "The past is never dead; it's not even past."
If I didn't comment on something, it means it's good enough that I have nothing to criticise. It may be fantastic, but you can improve it somehow.
"The latter, though not ideal,
does have its attraction:"
Colons can only be used for lists which you do go into ...
"the satisfying sound
as you shatter;
the collective turn of heads;
the chance that when you're swept up
and binned into oblivion,
someone might get cut."
However you use a semicolon and I'm not sure that pairing of semicolons and a colon is correct. Could someone who's more grammatically experienced comment more on this please?
--
My Livejournal
Axiomatic Linguistics and Graphemics
Charldemone I wasn't intending for this to be a wild tangent. My intention wasn't to prove you wrong, I was simpley trying to get clarification because I have never heard of this rule.
--
My Livejournal
Axiomatic Linguistics and Graphemics
--
William Faulkner: "The past is never dead; it's not even past."
If I didn't comment on something, it means it's good enough that I have nothing to criticise. It may be fantastic, but you can improve it somehow.
the chance that when you're swept up
and binned into oblivion,
someone might get cut.
--
My Livejournal
Axiomatic Linguistics and Graphemics
(1) "blah blah blah: a, b, c, when d, e" versus
(2) "blah blah blah: a; b; c; when d, e" versus
(3) "blah blah blah: a, b, c; when d, e".
(1) seems grammatically incorrect to me because if it were a list, there would be an "and" between "c," and "when". In the case that "when d, e" is a separate sentence, the comma after c should be a semicolon.
(2) conveys a list. I think it's pretty self-evident, but perhaps that's just because I'm accustomed to this rule.
(3) conveys two separate clauses. Again, I think this to be fairly self-evident, but perhaps you disagree.
I don't know if this helped or not, and I'm sorry to ~hermionegreen for this wild tangent on her deviation.
--
William Faulkner: "The past is never dead; it's not even past."
If I didn't comment on something, it means it's good enough that I have nothing to criticise. It may be fantastic, but you can improve it somehow.
--
My Livejournal
Axiomatic Linguistics and Graphemics
--
*dALinkSystem | #Writers-Workshop | #project-improve | #LITplease | *Lit-Twitter | =DeviantArtSecret
Hmm, I'll try to explain myself coherently. Imagine that you're telling someone a story about someone else: "She was walking to the shop for some milk when she slipped on the pavement -- you know how slippery concrete gets in the rain -- and scraped her knee terribly". The "you"is a way of involving the reader in the story, of engaging their imagination, because you put them in the place of the person you're telling them about.
Make more sense? Apologies if it's a rambling mess: I am not good at this.
--
Link
--
*dALinkSystem | #Writers-Workshop | #project-improve | #LITplease | *Lit-Twitter | =DeviantArtSecret
Previous Page123Next Page