I used to think killers were
the most perplexing breed,
the equation most denied
answers by our best scholars.

Evil is tedious,
a simple shell bulging with lice,
repellent to behold,
and not worth our philosophy.

Madness can never be explained
except in terms which render it
an ailment beyond our grasp,
obscure yet solid as belief.

What really captivates the mind
are those the killers leave behind,
the mothers, sons, the lovers, friends,
they who keep pity alive.

What does Light think
on meeting Dark?
Does the latter give his host
a morsel of his own being?

I like to think the flames of good
can handle any bleak tempest,
and shining fierce in night's landscape
immortal wicks will always burn.

Life and death, now good and evil. your on a role.

(08-05-2011, 09:20 AM)Heslopian Wrote:  I used to think that killers were is 'that' needed.
the most perplexing breed of man, is 'of man' needed
the equation most denied would 'an' work better than 'the'
an answer by our best scholars. would it work better without 'an' eg; answers by our best scholars.

But evil is just tedious, are 'but and 'just' needed
a simple shell bulging with lice,
quite repellant to behold, is 'quite' needed, (repellent)
and not worth our philosphy. philosophy

Madness can never be explained
except in terms which render it
an ailment beyond our grasp,
obscure yet solid as belief. for me this verse feels a little weak (too telly)

What really captivates the mind
are those the killers leave behind,
the mothers, sons, the lovers, friends,
they who keep pity alive. i think this verse is great, a real good insight bearing in mind the topic

What does Light think
on meeting Dark?
Does the latter give his host
a morsel of his own being? for me this verse feels a little weak as well.

I like to think the flames of good
can handle any bleak tempest,
and shining fierce in night's landscape
immortal wicks will always burn. great closing, a little pretentious but it works really well for me.

for me it's a good poem in need of a minor edit. jmo

thanks for the read.

Thank you for the kind words and feedback Billy. All the extraneous words you mention were added to create a rhythm. I have a system with some poems where I read each stanza really fast after it's finished to make sure there are no hiccups. That said, reading them again with your changes put in place they flow just as well, so I think I'll edit them thusly. Cheers.
What do you suggest to make the weak verses more showy than telly? And how is the last verse pretentious?
Thank you for the heads ups on the spelling errors, I'll correct them now.

it's pretentious because you (the 1st person) are telling us what you think in a grandiose ending. (i did say it worked )

an image or something solid in bothe the verses mention their is little of substance, mainly they're wide assumptions with little meat.
they don't show us madness they just talk about it, maybe question it very broadly. these are jmo by the way so don't take them as written in stone.

But isn't grandiosity the whole point of poetry? By that logic you could accuse Shakespeare of being unnecessarily grandiose for assuming marriage is glorious in several sonnets.

I see what you mean about the madness verse being assumptive - I'll see if I can make it more imagistic to relieve that aspect - but the Light and Dark verse is composed of questions. Can questions be assumptive?

Just because I'm debating your opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking you for it

removed for attacking the poet/admin

(08-05-2011, 11:16 AM)Heslopian Wrote:  But isn't grandiosity the whole point of poetry? By that logic you could accuse Shakespeare of being unnecessarily grandiose for assuming marriage is glorious in several sonnets.

I see what you mean about the madness verse being assumptive - I'll see if I can make it more imagistic to relieve that aspect - but the Light and Dark verse is composed of questions. Can questions be assumptive?

Just because I'm debating your opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking you for it

getting off topic, i can't come anywhere nearing to agree that grandiosity is what poetry is the whole point of poetry. it's a pretty sweeping statement.
shakespeares time was a time of grandiosity but again thats nothing to do with this poem.

for me the ending was unusually flamboyant in it's greatness. i was merely poining out the fact (my pov) and commenting that it worked.

Hi Jack,

Here are some comments for you:

(08-05-2011, 09:20 AM)Heslopian Wrote:  I used to think killers were
the most perplexing breed,
the equation most denied--I think for the purpose of the argumentation you need to link killers directly with evil even if just by adding of evil after equation
answers by our best scholars.--I think you could cut answers without losing much.
Evil is tedious, --This feels too abrupt for your tone. It feels like it needs a transitionary phrase. I also think pulling up a simple shell would make the line much stronger.
a simple shell bulging with lice,--I like this
repellent to behold,--you could if you like cut to behold and pull the next line up after repellent
and not worth our philosophy.

Madness can never be explained
except in terms which render it
an ailment beyond our grasp,
obscure yet solid as belief. --nice philosophical argumentation but seems a little flat in a poem. I would consider cutting this and stay with the killers. It's also possible that introducing madness excuses the culpability and makes it awful but not evil. If you keep this you need something like what we call madness to avoid the problem.

What really captivates the mind
are those the killers leave behind,
the mothers, sons, the lovers, friends,
they who keep pity alive.--jack admittingly this could just be me but i need more imagery from you interspaced between these statements. I need imagery or more specific examples to captivate my mind.

What does Light think
on meeting Dark?
Does the latter give his host
a morsel of his own being?--I like where your going here. I'm really interested in calling one a host for the other. I know there're two ways to take host here, but still it's interesting. I think you may want to run the poem through this personification. Lead with this, expand on it and blend the killer argumentation in.

I like to think the flames of good
can handle any bleak tempest,
and shining fierce in night's landscape
immortal wicks will always burn.--I don't know about this Jack. I have poems of my own that straddle preachy conclusions (this isn't as bad as some of them) my problem though is with the I like to think lead in. The poem needs to bring you further than I like to think. You need to make your case stronger so you can omit the clause

Just my thoughts Jack, use them as you like.

Best,

Todd