breathe in, then next out, then
look around, next then shout:
we are here, grounded down —
not ground down, yet on ground —
we are not of the place
from which our roots draw life,
save through the eruption
(staccato intrusion)
that carries that violent
disruption, its number:
breakdown of numb slumber,
a sudden appearance
of meaning:
direction,
secession,
rejection,
divorce from
illusion
flash breaking ill silence,
flare burning, not embers
but lightning —
Awaken!
Awaken!
False dreams long gone fading,
gestating true meaning,
true message escaping
across the horizon
(black hole radiation!
invasion!)
left shaken,
left broken,
left sundered;
derailed and abandoned
our jumble;
condemned us,
each gasping for pardon,
for grace and for that which
our pain shows
we’re lacking
breathe in, then
next out, then
look around,
next then shout:
we are here,
grounded down —
not ground down,
yet on ground —
we are not
of the place
from which our
roots draw life,
save through the
eruption —
staccato
intrusion —
that carries
that violent
disruption,
its number:
breakdown of
numb slumber,
a sudden
appearance
of meaning —
direction,
secession,
rejection,
divorce from
illusion —
flash breaking
ill silence,
flare burning,
not embers
but lightning —
Awakening!
Awakening!
false dreams long
gone fading,
gestating
true meaning,
true message
escaping
across the
horizon —
black hole ray
deeation —
invasion —
leaves shaken,
leaves broken,
leaves sundered;
derailing,
abandons
our jumble,
condemns us,
each gasping
for pardon,
for grace and
for that which
our lack shows
we’re missing
I would like to start by saying I have not offered a formal critique before, so please forgive me if I mess it up. I will try to stick to the framework suggested by the forum mods, altho I am not entirely sure I understand them.
Method: You have broken your poem into breath-like fragments to mirror the process of awakening and breathing, but the line breaks do not fall naturally and the overall impression is that you have cut lines for stylistic reasons, not for the rhythm.
“breathe in, then / next out, then / look around, / next then shout”
This is not a natural pattern for the breaks and it results in your imagery becoming muddled. The repetitions do not build momentum or progress the image, but instead become almost monotonous and numbing.
“grounded down — / not ground down, / yet on ground —”
The play on "ground" and "grounded" is fine, but the phrasing is unnatural and the dashes do not substitute for the missing rhythm, they simply chop what should be a single clear thought into pieces. Again, it feels stylistic rather than purposeful and it detracts from the effect you are going for. Some lines land, others would be improved by rejoining them into a single line.
The tone also wavers between mechanical and lyrical, which can work but at the moment it feels inconsistent. I am not sure if this is "Method" or "Manner", tho.
Manner: Lots of good imagery, I especially like “flash breaking / ill silence, / flare burning, / not embers / but lightning”. However, there is also a lot that does not land, mostly because it is so abstract that it does not really mean anything. I cannot work out what “black hole ray / deeation” might mean, is "deeation" a typo or a made up word? Either way, it probably does not belong in your poem.
Matter: A big subject, existential awakening, shattering of illusions and such, all very heady, but at the moment you are drowning it in abstractions. Very little in your poem feels experienced, it is mostly all declared. Abstract ideas may fascinate, but they do not move a reader emotionally, for that you need concrete images, ideally surprising and original ones
In conclusion, I think you are putting style over substance, and your poem is suffering for it. If you are wed to the idea of very short lines, you need to compress your ideas to fit that meter, otherwise your reader will be wondering why you have chopped all your lines up arbitrarily, and this confusion will keep them from properly engaging with your ideas.
Thank you very much for this thorough feedback; i appreciate your criticisms! i was unsure if this poem was "great" or "garbage", so it is good to have a reality check
The short lines were intentional, keeping it three syllables per line, which i think works read out loud but perhaps not so much on paper (or screen). "Black hole radiation" required a cheat, which evidently did not work
i'm going to work on tightening this up, your feedback is very helpful in that regard
