Devolution

[Mark Cecil]

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.

I've tried to make the final stanza more subtle in its conclusion which hopefully makes it a bit more thought provoking.  In regards to writing and the ease at reading the poem particular the last stanza it sounds as if you've read an earlier edit.  there is no "God's power in line 3 of the final stanza. Or line 6"they can". That said I felt the last three lines had to be changed which is what I've done in the final edit.

[rollingbrianjones]

Yeah my bad, was pretty (very) intoxicated when I commented last so no doubt was mixing up the versions as I to and fro'd from your piece and writing my comment- the edit, reading it only slightly drunk and in its entirety with no mixing up, is a definite improvement, kudos. It feels like a more appropriate summary, lyrically and largely also in terms of provoking thought, than your original ending. Not a fan of the loins of Adam bit though... brought on a natural cringe for whatever reason

RBJ