05-17-2015, 07:24 AM
Come on Tom, I know you didn't listen to the whole thing, and certainly listen to enough times to know what it said. Plus they stole that opening rift from Alice Cooper, I think it was the "Under My Wheels" Album. God, that guy singing was pathetic. Regardless, if I need to refer to the lyrics of a song from an obscure metal band, then the poem needs work.
I'm guessing just from the poem, this is an oblique reference to humans destroying the earth, and the dubious claim that it is theirs to destroy. The insertion of clown seems fairly ad hoc and more or less to act as a forced rhyme at that part. The whole poem seems to lack cohesion and seems at times contradictory. If the house (earth) was burnt down, then where is this other place at the end. How can one "move into" a place that no longer exists?
Further, what can we take from this odd line "smouldering lips on still laughing clowns". We can say that there are more than one, as they are clowns (plural). They were evidently singed but not really burned from the fire, thus a very fire resistant group of clowns. As they are still laughing, it could be assumed they are mechanical as they are still laughing despite the earth being burned, just a guess there really. Still it tells us nothing about the clowns in terms of identification or purpose, so it seems to remain an enigma and adds nothing to the poem. In this iteration this poem seems an advertizement for the extreme green, green folks: pure hyperbole. Long before humans could damage the earth to this extent, humans would have died out and the earth would eventually right itself. Certainly humans do not pose the biggest threat this world has ever faced and it is only our conceit that makes us think so. so I think the use of hyperbole here is a bit overblown and undermines the argument.
At the end the use of blatant sarcasm could work if only these two lines were used:
"No need to rent.
It's our's to sell" (BTW "ours" is misspelled) Although it could probably be better punctuated.
However with the third line "Right?" It is as though Joan Rivers steps in. Am I right?
It seems there is this strange mixture. In one moment the reader is left with too little information and then over guided in the next.
The bottom line for me is, I don't know if there is enough here to say it is worth trying to improve because I cannot be sure what it is trying to say.
Best of luck with this,
Dale
I'm guessing just from the poem, this is an oblique reference to humans destroying the earth, and the dubious claim that it is theirs to destroy. The insertion of clown seems fairly ad hoc and more or less to act as a forced rhyme at that part. The whole poem seems to lack cohesion and seems at times contradictory. If the house (earth) was burnt down, then where is this other place at the end. How can one "move into" a place that no longer exists?
Further, what can we take from this odd line "smouldering lips on still laughing clowns". We can say that there are more than one, as they are clowns (plural). They were evidently singed but not really burned from the fire, thus a very fire resistant group of clowns. As they are still laughing, it could be assumed they are mechanical as they are still laughing despite the earth being burned, just a guess there really. Still it tells us nothing about the clowns in terms of identification or purpose, so it seems to remain an enigma and adds nothing to the poem. In this iteration this poem seems an advertizement for the extreme green, green folks: pure hyperbole. Long before humans could damage the earth to this extent, humans would have died out and the earth would eventually right itself. Certainly humans do not pose the biggest threat this world has ever faced and it is only our conceit that makes us think so. so I think the use of hyperbole here is a bit overblown and undermines the argument.
At the end the use of blatant sarcasm could work if only these two lines were used:
"No need to rent.
It's our's to sell" (BTW "ours" is misspelled) Although it could probably be better punctuated.
However with the third line "Right?" It is as though Joan Rivers steps in. Am I right?
It seems there is this strange mixture. In one moment the reader is left with too little information and then over guided in the next.
The bottom line for me is, I don't know if there is enough here to say it is worth trying to improve because I cannot be sure what it is trying to say.
Best of luck with this,
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.