Devolution second edit 

Some say we need a revolution now:
real power from the barrels of our guns,
beheading by the Guillotine’s thin blade,
the overthrow of rulers by the ruled,
who take seats of power just like them
by following their former masters’ ways.
Corruptible their power rages on
devouring beasts because they too devour
for knuckles clenched bring others to the fore.

Some say that power must and will evolve
with reason shining bright its light aloft
its rays gave birth to freedom and to thought
its babe of science came to bring us hope
and soon maturing quickly to a man
Its great machines did promise blissful life
until the booming guns of strife taught us:  
technology’s hand could not change our hearts
for no machine could operate our soul.

Some say that power has to be devolved
by one who has it and can give it too
but arms grow weak and hearts turn numb to all
for in the loins of Adam power rots
despairing we may grovel in the mud
or crawl in hope that power can be found
in one who mends our broken hearts anew, 
and sends transcendent power from above
so we can stand and share his glory too. 

Devolution first edit

Some say that we need a revolution
power found down the barrel of a gun
death by the drop of a Guillotine’s blade
when the mob massacres those above them
taking their seats of power without change
for they are clones of their former masters
and they are corruptible in their reign
beasts devouring those because they devour
for clenched knuckles always raise other ones

Some say that power needs an evolution
a calm and steady growth in our reason
giving birth to the great babe of science
who once born, soon grew into a strong man
whose machines promised to make life easy
but only the technopriests grew in wealth
while the flock was left to suffer greatly
technology’s hand made ours worthless
its five fingers snatched our dear living wage

No we need the devolution of power
God’s power given down out of his palm
to his sinful, weak and helpless creatures
who may grovel in the mud for power
but if they crawl to the foot of the cross
they can truly find it there in Jesus
who in love gives them crowns to reign with him
in his incorruptible reign of grace
inaugurated at mount calvary 

My problem is with the content of this poem.
If you believe in the Jesus myth, then hasn't S3 already happened and so why would you be "needing" it?

There's nothing aside from arbitrary line breaks that makes this a poem. It tells. It sounds like the opening of a manifesto. It is lacking rythm. There is no rhyme. Narry a metaphor or simile. It's more like a saltine cracker than a poem.

But don't worry, the dark ages will come again, in the meantime learn to swim.

I understand I might be presenting my own religious viewpoint quite overtly in this poem.  But in answer to your objection I would say the Christian faith is still as relevant today as it was in Jesus time and despite the emergence of other things like secular revolutions and the evolution of technology which I refer to in this poem.  The devolution of power still takes place today as it comes with a personal faith commitment to God up above, from the convert below, then God devolves his power to the convert hence the line: "so that they can find empowerment in him."  This then leads to change to our society and culture hence the line "a radical change from top to bottom" and despite the falleness of humanity it will one day be fulfilled fully in heaven.

---

(01-05-2017, 07:18 AM)Prickstar Wrote:  There's nothing aside from arbitrary line breaks that makes this a poem. It tells. It sounds like the opening of a manifesto. It is lacking rythm. There is no rhyme. Narry a metaphor or simile. It's more like a saltine cracker than a poem.

But don't worry, the dark ages will come again, in the meantime learn to swim.

Perhaps I need to add a few images to this to make it a bit more poetic.  But a part of me wants to keep it in its original form as some sort of declaration if it doesn't constitute as a poem.  In regards to rhythm I feel I've tried to hold to a strict metre throughout this poem of ten syllables to give it rhythm if you could suggest how I could improve further that would be most helpful.

---

This is an edit of the first stanza hopefully when I have time I can edit the other two.

Some say that we need a revolution
power found down the barrel of a gun
death by the drop of a Guillotine’s blade
when the mob massacres those above them
taking their seats of power without change
for they are clones of their former masters
the corruptible in their reign of terror
beasts just as violent as those before them
For clenched knuckles always raise other ones

"Meter" and "syllabic verse" are two entirely differently things and certainly cannot be exchanged one for the other.

A syllable count does not give rhythm, whereas the whole point of meter is to impart rhythm to the line.

Tyger, Tyger, burning bright,
in the forest of the night     2 lines in trochee tetrameter   (16 syllables)

A horse ate oats by the wet well
anticipating the sunrise.     2 lines of syllabic verse (16 syllables)

As can be seen the only similarity is that there are 16 syllables.

Syllabic verse can have intermittent rhythm, which can make for a very good line.

The horse | ate his oats | by the well
seeing | the rising | of the sun.

BTW you left out the American revolution. Granted a a spurious premise, but still it rest upon a flimsy reed.

Best,

dale

Tyger, Tyger, burning bright, 
in the forest of the night     2 lines in trochee tetrameter   (16 syllables)

Is this not 14 syllables

Ty - ger, Ty - ger, burn - ing bright

1      2    3      4     5        6     7

in    the  fo - rest    of     the night

---

BTW you left out the American revolution. Granted a a spurious premise, but still it rest upon a flimsy reed.

The edit tries to suggest revolutionaries aren't any better than rulers before them.  The American revolution brought a democratic system that limited the evil of man's heart but couldn't change or get rid of it e.g. Nixion and Trump only God can change the true nature of man hence the need of a devolution of power.

In this day and age I feel the manipulation and breaking of meter is fine- so long as you mean it and it occurs deliberately at times where breaks mirror sentiment/subject. Not sure you have meant to do this, but a thought

Honestly? I really enjoyed the discussion and thoughts raised in the poem, even if they are not exactly original I thought it was well put and thought provoking. Think a few rewrites could keep these questions, observations prevalent- but make it a better read or sonically, lyrically more impressive.

However, apologies for my lack of objectivity, the end of the poem threw me.
Religious poetry has always been popular, but this seems to almost offend the initial questions you ask and points you raise when you end in such an emphatically religious fashion. The open thought and documentation of nearly all of the poem just seems dashed aside by its conclusion. Are you that sure in your religious view you observe with such thought? Yet are incapable of doubt regarding your overarching belief...?
Did Christ reject Heaven for Earth or did he sacrifice himself knowing he'd be going straight back there...
God has devolved power to us on earth, that devolution is the excuse from the pious for our history of conflict and faults (free will) Yet our repetitive revolutionary flaws must be caused by repetitive natural instincts that could only be God given? I shall go on no more... I could

Not sure on the American revolution criticism- don't see why it's any more relevant than any other revolution.
I think your idea that revolutionaries inevitably do not improve on what was before them is pretty well backed up historically in most cases. I'd say minor revolution rather than total revolution provides social enhancement. All arguable though!
The American revolution was effectively an English civil war fought across the ocean, with the French and Dutch in opposition too. Then the subsequent democracy went on to violently take native peoples' land and improvise slavery to a degree totally behind the times. Even when Lincoln abolished it there was continued regression and little integration. French revolution led to imperialism- as with the Soviet Union- where the new regimes quickly basked in riches whilst the poor still suffered.

I digress. Second edit was a big improvement, overall an easy to read and easy to understand poem, perhaps not all that original, and to me a bit confused with its open and quite effective questioning and open mindedness until the Holy conclusion!

RBJ

The internal logic of the poem is better in the edited version.
The third stanza still brims over with adjectives like "incorruptible", "radical" and "great"'which are best avoided

(01-05-2017, 11:29 AM)rollingbrianjones Wrote:  In this day and age I feel the manipulation and breaking of meter is fine- so long as you mean it and it occurs deliberately at times where breaks mirror sentiment/subject. Not sure you have meant to do this, but a thought

Honestly? I really enjoyed the discussion and thoughts raised in the poem, even if they are not exactly original I thought it was well put and thought provoking. Think a few rewrites could keep these questions, observations prevalent- but make it a better read or sonically, lyrically more impressive.

However, apologies for my lack of objectivity, the end of the poem threw me.
Religious poetry has always been popular, but this seems to almost offend the initial questions you ask and points you raise when you end in such an emphatically religious fashion. The open thought and documentation of nearly all of the poem just seems dashed aside by its conclusion. Are you that sure in your religious view you observe with such thought? Yet are incapable of doubt regarding your overarching belief...?
Did Christ reject Heaven for Earth or did he sacrifice himself knowing he'd be going straight back there...
God has devolved power to us on earth, that devolution is the excuse from the pious for our history of conflict and faults (free will) Yet our repetitive revolutionary flaws must be caused by repetitive natural instincts that could only be God given? I shall go on no more... I could

Not sure on the American revolution criticism- don't see why it's any more relevant than any other revolution.
I think your idea that revolutionaries inevitably do not improve on what was before them is pretty well backed up historically in most cases. I'd say minor revolution rather than total revolution provides social enhancement. All arguable though!
The American revolution was effectively an English civil war fought across the ocean, with the French and Dutch in opposition too. Then the subsequent democracy went on to violently take native peoples' land and improvise slavery to a degree totally behind the times. Even when Lincoln abolished it there was continued regression and little integration. French revolution led to imperialism- as with the Soviet Union- where the new regimes quickly basked in riches whilst the poor still suffered.

I digress. Second edit was a big improvement, overall an easy to read and easy to understand poem, perhaps not all that original, and to me a bit confused with its open and quite effective questioning and open mindedness until the Holy conclusion!

RBJ

I think a need to work on the meter of this poem a bit more I didn't give it much thought to be honest.  I'm trying to write the whole poem in iambic pentameter so the third edit might take some time but hopefully will give the whole thing a bit more rhythm.

I'll also work a bit more on my conclusion.  I still want a strong religious conclusion but one that is more persuasive rather than forced.  Also I'll try to say that God's power will one day put an end to the abuse of power even the abuses of those who say they follow him

If you want perfect meter, simply hand write or print it and dot dash the stresses- then change as necessary. But not at the cost of quality.

After reading your response and your intention, I'd certainly consider the conclusion- at some length with dramatic revision.
Your first two stanzas describing our negative behaviours and our faults make a pretty strong case against God to the non believer - or at least make the case for his sustained absence.
By then referring to something (if true) that happened 2000 years ago, and before the faults you previously described in stanzas 1 & 2, there is no convincing end. This is from someone non-religious but open minded.
Your case for God needs to contradict the first two stanzas description of our failings. Or explain them. Of course this is difficult- but if you want to affect the reader, you won't do it by talking about Jesus and Calvary way back in time. Ask the non believing reader questions they find hard to answer- don't throw at them a belief.

(01-05-2017, 03:23 AM)Mark Cecil Wrote:  Devolution first edit

some SAY that we NEED a REvoLUtion
POWer FOUND down the BARrel OF a GUN
DEATH by the DROP of a GUILLoTINE's BLADE
when the MOB MASSacres THOSE aBOVE them
TAKing their SEATS of POWer WITHout CHANGE
for THEY are CLONES of their FORmer MASters
and THEY are coRRUPtible IN their REIGN
BEASTS deVOURing THOSE beCAUSE they deVOUR
for CLENCHED KNUCKles ALways RAISE Other ONES

capitals are stressed, minuscules unstressed. i didn't even know this was supposed to have meter until i read the feedback. this is a rough reading, but not so rough that most of its guesses are wrong, and even with some corrections this is still far from IP, or perhaps even regular meter.

another, perhaps bigger problem is that everything's sort of clunky -- there aren't really sentences here, the theme (religion!) doesn't seem to mesh with the style, and ultimately the language contains neither vividness nor novelty enough that the style could even justify itself on its own. not only should you punctuate, but i think you should also revise -- a lot. "when the mob massacres those above them..." is really a big problem -- so when the mob massacres the elite, some say that we need a revolution, or is that continuing from the speaker's definition of revolution as "power found down the barrel of a gun / death by the drop of a Guillotine's blade"? and the two "for..." lines there: without punctuation or a clear subject-verb structure, they're really clunky in a way that i can't really say (perhaps it's also because the first for continues the whole sentence, while the last one introduces an aphorism that to me makes a laughable sort of sense, but the way the lines are structured, they both seem to elaborate on the same thought).

Some say that we need a revolution
power found down the barrel of a gun
death by the drop of a Guillotine’s blade
when the mob massacres those above them
taking their seats of power without change
for they are clones of their former masters
and they are corruptible in their reign
beasts devouring those because they devour
for clenched knuckles always raise other ones

Some say that power needs an evolution
a calm and steady growth in our reason
giving birth to the great babe of science
who once born, soon grew into a strong man

*and what makes the noted lack of punctuation even more frustrating is that you punctuate here, and imperfectly too (I believe it should be "who, once born,... "

whose machines promised to make life easy
but only the technopriests grew in wealth

http://www.humanoids.com/album/131
not very related, but yeah, that's the first thing that came into my mind. yeah, the technopriests are, for the most part, villains in that story too. i vastly prefer Jodorowsky's comics preceding that, particularly The Incal and The Metabarons -- i can't really say anything about the weirdness of The Incal other than it's a classic, and The Metabarons....The Metabarons was pure opera (although if you don't like seeing, say, a baby having its head blown off because it was the son of a man and his wife's body as possessed by his mother's soul, then yeah, the presentation may not be for you. the art of everything's absolutely gorgeous, though)

while the flock was left to suffer greatly
technology’s hand made ours worthless
its five fingers snathched our dear living wage

first: snatched. second, Luddite -- that worthlessness is only for the old guard's hand (or rather, one can't really say it's a blanket bad -- on the one hand, unemployment (although the increasing complexity of both machines and the society they work in, as well as the current lack of truly capable AI, means more jobs are ultimately needed, I'm guessing), but on the other hand, the freedom to pursue more uplifting pursuits, such as making video games and writing poetry), and at risk of conflating the speaker with the author, without technology i wouldn't be reading this piece. 

No we need the devolution of power

....hmmm. Isn't it ironic that the speaker complains about technology snatching his dear living wage (in a way that, in its vagueness, implies less the alienation of modern society, more the Luddite fashion I earlier complained about), then suddenly turns to God for wealth?

God’s power given down out of his palm
to his sinful, weak and helpless creatures

at yet another risk, this time of being a stickler, this needs a good deal of clarification. "God's power given...to [the] sinful" sounds a lot less like a message of reconciliation, and a lot more like God's not a particularly discerning fellow....that is to say, i thought our God was a Holy God?

that said, i did actually get the message here. still, i'd rather something other than God's power be commended here, or perhaps the structure be cleared up a bit -- i can stand some theological weirdness in, say, a Gospel-Rap song, but not in something written, unless you don't actually prescribe to the religion i prescribe to....

who may grovel in the mud for power
but if they crawl to the foot of the cross
they can truly find it there in Jesus

....well, "Jesus", you do seem to. i suppose why "power" works in Spirituals and not here is that Spirituals set the tone enough, both in music and in simple language, such that what they ask from God is his power to overcome their sin and suffering, and not, especially with the more material-seeming message of the earlier stanzas, his power in general.

who in love gives them crowns to reign with him
in his incorruptible reign of grace
inaugurated at mount calvary

but yeah, i repeat that issue of sinners being given power by God just like that, instead of being given the power to overcome their sins and the world. also, everyone else's issue that the turn to God here isn't supported enough. S1 is all "some say that we need a revolution when democracy does its job" (oh yeah, that's another read from the rather clunky structure), S2 is all "some say that we need for power to be applied more reasonably, even though it's an evil failure" (with my additional note on that being that a lot of the great thinkers were ardent faithful, since they saw that to understand God's creation is to appreciate it (what science is), and that to create technology to ease man's material suffering is an extension of that whole "love thy neighbor" thing (what technology is ---- when applied right. again, it's far sketchier than this piece seems to imply), and lastly it's all "nope to all that, turn to God instead", as if to act upon the world is not something our Lord endorsed. it's not nearly nuanced enough nor crazy enough to really work ---- i would think a more effective turn to the polemical would be to elaborate on how revolutions and science are better when applied responsibly (religiously), or how the great revolution and the great evolution happened with Jesus's annunciation-->ascension (with the addition of a sort of "justify[ing] the ways of God to man"], or even the exact same message, but with more thematic consistency (again, the fact that the person of Jesus incarnated into a fullman-fullGod sort of being was one hell of a revolution, and the evolution of man's matter-and-idea-based reason pales in comparison to that of the evolution of his soul) and a good deal more vividness in the language (perhaps discuss in different terms the pointlessness of revolution (because right now the pointlessness the piece discusses reads less "history is a circle", more "every desperate soul who voted the idiot candidate is an idiot asshole not deserving of his rights"), and emphasize, instead of the Luddite concept of smaller wages, the alienation brought about by things like the internet, or the environmental destruction brought about by things like plastics, or the general destruction brought about by things like drones, or even the overpopulation brought about by things like vaccines....).*

yet another semi-tangential note: as far as I know, the French Revolution was way less of a blanket failure as it seemed to be. yes, it led to the Reign of Terror, and ultimately France returned to monarchy for a bit, but it rattled the thought sphere of the world enough to evoke more democratic change, if not at the time then at the unrest that later (in some cases, much later) followed. and sure, violence breeds more violence, but it's more a violence inherent in the people than anything -- for was it not the violence of war that starved the people of France, or established its pampered lords?

(01-08-2017, 12:38 AM)RiverNotch Wrote:  

(01-05-2017, 03:23 AM)Mark Cecil Wrote:  Devolution first edit

some SAY that we NEED a REvoLUtion
POWer FOUND down the BARrel OF a GUN
DEATH by the DROP of a GUILLoTINE's BLADE
when the MOB MASSacres THOSE aBOVE them
TAKing their SEATS of POWer WITHout CHANGE
for THEY are CLONES of their FORmer MASters
and THEY are coRRUPtible IN their REIGN
BEASTS deVOURing THOSE beCAUSE they deVOUR
for CLENCHED KNUCKles ALways RAISE Other ONES

capitals are stressed, minuscules unstressed. i didn't even know this was supposed to have meter until i read the feedback. this is a rough reading, but not so rough that most of its guesses are wrong, and even with some corrections this is still far from IP, or perhaps even regular meter.

another, perhaps bigger problem is that everything's sort of clunky -- there aren't really sentences here, the theme (religion!) doesn't seem to mesh with the style, and ultimately the language contains neither vividness nor novelty enough that the style could even justify itself on its own. not only should you punctuate, but i think you should also revise -- a lot. "when the mob massacres those above them..." is really a big problem -- so when the mob massacres the elite, some say that we need a revolution, or is that continuing from the speaker's definition of revolution as "power found down the barrel of a gun / death by the drop of a Guillotine's blade"? and the two "for..." lines there: without punctuation or a clear subject-verb structure, they're really clunky in a way that i can't really say (perhaps it's also because the first for continues the whole sentence, while the last one introduces an aphorism that to me makes a laughable sort of sense, but the way the lines are structured, they both seem to elaborate on the same thought).

Some say that we need a revolution
power found down the barrel of a gun
death by the drop of a Guillotine’s blade
when the mob massacres those above them
taking their seats of power without change
for they are clones of their former masters
and they are corruptible in their reign
beasts devouring those because they devour
for clenched knuckles always raise other ones

Some say that power needs an evolution
a calm and steady growth in our reason
giving birth to the great babe of science
who once born, soon grew into a strong man

*and what makes the noted lack of punctuation even more frustrating is that you punctuate here, and imperfectly too (I believe it should be "who, once born,... "

whose machines promised to make life easy
but only the technopriests grew in wealth

http://www.humanoids.com/album/131
not very related, but yeah, that's the first thing that came into my mind. yeah, the technopriests are, for the most part, villains in that story too. i vastly prefer Jodorowsky's comics preceding that, particularly The Incal and The Metabarons -- i can't really say anything about the weirdness of The Incal other than it's a classic, and The Metabarons....The Metabarons was pure opera (although if you don't like seeing, say, a baby having its head blown off because it was the son of a man and his wife's body as possessed by his mother's soul, then yeah, the presentation may not be for you. the art of everything's absolutely gorgeous, though)

while the flock was left to suffer greatly
technology’s hand made ours worthless
its five fingers snathched our dear living wage

first: snatched. second, Luddite -- that worthlessness is only for the old guard's hand (or rather, one can't really say it's a blanket bad -- on the one hand, unemployment (although the increasing complexity of both machines and the society they work in, as well as the current lack of truly capable AI, means more jobs are ultimately needed, I'm guessing), but on the other hand, the freedom to pursue more uplifting pursuits, such as making video games and writing poetry), and at risk of conflating the speaker with the author, without technology i wouldn't be reading this piece. 

No we need the devolution of power

....hmmm. Isn't it ironic that the speaker complains about technology snatching his dear living wage (in a way that, in its vagueness, implies less the alienation of modern society, more the Luddite fashion I earlier complained about), then suddenly turns to God for wealth?

God’s power given down out of his palm
to his sinful, weak and helpless creatures

at yet another risk, this time of being a stickler, this needs a good deal of clarification. "God's power given...to [the] sinful" sounds a lot less like a message of reconciliation, and a lot more like God's not a particularly discerning fellow....that is to say, i thought our God was a Holy God?

that said, i did actually get the message here. still, i'd rather something other than God's power be commended here, or perhaps the structure be cleared up a bit -- i can stand some theological weirdness in, say, a Gospel-Rap song, but not in something written, unless you don't actually prescribe to the religion i prescribe to....

who may grovel in the mud for power
but if they crawl to the foot of the cross
they can truly find it there in Jesus

....well, "Jesus", you do seem to. i suppose why "power" works in Spirituals and not here is that Spirituals set the tone enough, both in music and in simple language, such that what they ask from God is his power to overcome their sin and suffering, and not, especially with the more material-seeming message of the earlier stanzas, his power in general.

who in love gives them crowns to reign with him
in his incorruptible reign of grace
inaugurated at mount calvary

but yeah, i repeat that issue of sinners being given power by God just like that, instead of being given the power to overcome their sins and the world. also, everyone else's issue that the turn to God here isn't supported enough. S1 is all "some say that we need a revolution when democracy does its job" (oh yeah, that's another read from the rather clunky structure), S2 is all "some say that we need for power to be applied more reasonably, even though it's an evil failure" (with my additional note on that being that a lot of the great thinkers were ardent faithful, since they saw that to understand God's creation is to appreciate it (what science is), and that to create technology to ease man's material suffering is an extension of that whole "love thy neighbor" thing (what technology is ---- when applied right. again, it's far sketchier than this piece seems to imply), and lastly it's all "nope to all that, turn to God instead", as if to act upon the world is not something our Lord endorsed. it's not nearly nuanced enough nor crazy enough to really work ---- i would think a more effective turn to the polemical would be to elaborate on how revolutions and science are better when applied responsibly (religiously), or how the great revolution and the great evolution happened with Jesus's annunciation-->ascension (with the addition of a sort of "justify[ing] the ways of God to man"], or even the exact same message, but with more thematic consistency (again, the fact that the person of Jesus incarnated into a fullman-fullGod sort of being was one hell of a revolution, and the evolution of man's matter-and-idea-based reason pales in comparison to that of the evolution of his soul) and a good deal more vividness in the language (perhaps discuss in different terms the pointlessness of revolution (because right now the pointlessness the piece discusses reads less "history is a circle", more "every desperate soul who voted the idiot candidate is an idiot asshole not deserving of his rights"), and emphasize, instead of the Luddite concept of smaller wages, the alienation brought about by things like the internet, or the environmental destruction brought about by things like plastics, or the general destruction brought about by things like drones, or even the overpopulation brought about by things like vaccines....).*

yet another semi-tangential note: as far as I know, the French Revolution was way less of a blanket failure as it seemed to be. yes, it led to the Reign of Terror, and ultimately France returned to monarchy for a bit, but it rattled the thought sphere of the world enough to evoke more democratic change, if not at the time then at the unrest that later (in some cases, much later) followed. and sure, violence breeds more violence, but it's more a violence inherent in the people than anything -- for was it not the violence of war that starved the people of France, or established its pampered lords?

 You've given a lot to think about.  I've provided a second edit which is closer to iambic pentameter than the previous edit but in regards to the issues you've raised over the content like clunkiness, punctuation and the final stanza I'll need more time to address this but hopefully in the mean time the second edit will do.

firstly, well done, an excellent example as to how to publicly accept feedback/critique.

secondly, religious poetry is as good as any other type of poetry when done well.

the 2nd edit:

it reads better for the reasons mentioned above though after reading it, it still felt wordy. i think there's definitely a sonnet or two in there which would help trim some fat away. if you don't wish to rhyme in sonnet form, don't feel forced to rhyme unless you really think it a good idea. i'd also go as far as saying not all poetry is done in a fixed meter. metaphor and simile are just two poetic devices that help lift a poem. also use the sonic devices.

What would be examples of less fixed meters? Free verse?

"What would be examples of less fixed meters? Free verse?"

Breaking an otherwise perfect meter at a certain point (anywhere from between a few words, to an entire line, to a couplet, etc...) if it mirrors the meaning of the words. For example in the case of this poem, you could signify unrest, doubt, thought, by subtle manipulation of meter.

Your editing is going really well, too. Kudos!

if it has meter it could just be iambic, it could be something else.
it doesn't need to be pentameter, it could be a mixture of meter by way of different forms; ballad, limerick, haiku, sonnet, free verse [which doesn't have a regular meter] and blank verse which is generally iambic pentemeter...there's a lot more [check out here]

Suddenly, meter! It's still rhythmically spotty in a few places, but I think billy's right -- if not a wholesale revision, how about a wholesale excision? I think the shortness of a work helps mask any holes -- otherwise, like I said. I might return to the current edit in more detail, but for now, good job!

(01-05-2017, 03:23 AM)Mark Cecil Wrote:  Devolution second edit (I've tried mostly to put the poem in Iambic pentameter with this edit, rather than focus on issues raised over content.  Hopefully it is an improvement at least)

Some say we need a revolution now:
real power from the barrels of guns,
beheading by the Guillotine’s thin blade,
the overthrow of rulers by the ruled.
But they'll take the seats of power
and follow the former corrupt ways
devouring beasts because they too devour
till knuckles clenched bring others to the fore.

Some say that power must and will evolve
in the light of reason, and scientific thought.
The Enlightenment came to bring us hope
and matured into an age of machines
promising a blissful life, until the booming
guns of August taught us technology 
could not change our hearts
for no machine could operate our soul

Would be an example of "freer" verse with a slightly more comvincing thesis in S2

(01-08-2017, 07:31 PM)Achebe Wrote:  

(01-05-2017, 03:23 AM)Mark Cecil Wrote:  Devolution second edit (I've tried mostly to put the poem in Iambic pentameter with this edit, rather than focus on issues raised over content.  Hopefully it is an improvement at least)

Some say we need a revolution now:
real power from the barrels of guns,
beheading by the Guillotine’s thin blade,
the overthrow of rulers by the ruled.
But they'll take the seats of power
and follow the former corrupt ways
devouring beasts because they too devour
till knuckles clenched bring others to the fore.

Some say that power must and will evolve
in the light of reason, and scientific thought.
The Enlightenment came to bring us hope
and matured into an age of machines
promising a blissful life, until the booming
guns of August taught us technology 
could not change our hearts
for no machine could operate our soul

Would be an example of "freer" verse with a slightly more comvincing thesis in S2

I'll take your suggestions regarding my thesis on board and I'll make a few changes but I think i'll stick to iambic pentameter

Already lots said on this now- but you seem to be taking mixed opinions on board and improving the piece... so thought I'd give a few final thoughts hoping it might inspire you to improve something here or there:

First two stanzas improved no end in the edit, a smoother and more effective read. The debate on tech and revolution and their effects could go on, but no need, as your poem suggests your opinions on the matter and leaves the reader thinking in regards to both issues/thoughts- which is a success in itself.

The third stanza- I feel you lose the fluency of the first two. Is this intended? Your documented desire to use and abuse meter seems to go out of the window here. From the third line of this stanza (God's power...) to the 6th (they can...) I lose the ease with which I enjoyed reading all lines previous,read the lines aloud and perhaps you'll see what I mean.
I feel, to mirror your divine conclusion, this final stanza should perhaps be the smoothest and most beautifully written of the three. Not the most broken.

At risk of being repetitive, this final stanza being stronger will add worth to what I still think is a very weak case for God. Rivernotch pretty much hit all of my nails on the head in his/her previous lengthy post about this, so I'll summarise.
I said in my previous post, I really am being as objective as possible- but you do not present your belief with the strength it merits, or with the strength to force the reader into thought. I still feel that the current combination of the weakest stanza in terms of writing (as the third one to me clearly is) and the generic and obviously put religious conclusion that preaches obvious notions rather than provokes thought, do not sufficiently follow your well written ideasin the first two stanzas.

I want to be made to think, to unavoidably assess the case for God. Currently it falls short of that, and I feel from your responses, and from how near this piece is to being effective, you are aiming and want that effect on your reader.