I like this piece a lot. It's a great concept that you've captured with this loving pet. Very creative.
The ending seems a bit weak though. It seems to be letting humans get off the hook for messing up the natural world. I don't know how you would add something like that to this piece though.
"The final battle is about to erupt. The land, already ravaged by previous battles lies eerily silent in the moments before the “final” battle erupts." you say the same thing twice in these sentences you should probably just use the second one.
I don't understand why you place some of the words in quotes. for instance: "victory" and “final”
One conceptual thing I don't understand is the issues of "chaos and anarchy" being the opposite of "peace and stability" you should just use good and evil instead.
Don't forget you can have peace and stability under a tyrant and have peace from chaos.
with the good and evil issue you could explain how each of the armies thought they were good but that their enemies thought they were bad. that would make your conclusion of good and evil fighting for eternity but it doesn't matter because both armies are good and evil to some extent.
this theory is solid and seems well received. (I have a few more notes that I will expand upon and send you later but for now something else.)
"The trick is to learn when to CEASE the pruning process. So often a song will be so mechanical by the time the recording process is finished, it loses part of its message. This indeed is why live music is often more enjoyable than the original recording."
music does get lost in the pruning process of recording with the use of technically specifically mixing boards - You could say that a band practicing could also be to much pruning. But one aspect of music that doesn't lose from pruning is live music which is do to the audiences energy and not necessarily pruning. each full venue brings it's own birth of sound because of the audiences instant reaction in which you can't go back and change.
reading your poetry to a group of people out load would have this same effective because it would be your voice reflection and not the stagnant written word production the readers/listeners reaction.
Live are is always different than stagnate art.
I'll send some more thoughts to ponder after I'm done writing them.
I like your point but it seems that you turn on yourself.
you might want to add a repeated line to equal out the battle.
light cannot exist without dark,
darkness will die without light,
dark follows,
light leads,
their continuous battle will never end, light follows.
dark leads.
neither can ever win.
you might want two lines instead of one.
Assumptions and interpretations
of two indifferent beings,
I think this should also change but I don't know how. "The namer of the beings sides"
Also for some of your opposing light dark things you might want words with exact opposites and then point out them being opposites is pointless in a stronger way.
the best thing about this poem is it's rhythm. It brings me back to high school when I use to yell at the drummers to practice their rudiments-are technical strokes to improve a players abilities (thanks for the memories). It's the same as telling a trombone players to practice their scales (yes, I play the trombone).
In light of percussive reasons I would suggest to add one more " 'cause he can " to those lines.
If you really want to be brave with drumming fallow a meter with Paradiddle-diddle or other rudiments.
My biggest problem of the argument of gay marriages is from the miss understanding from both sides. As you stated very clearly from your bible references you see it amoral and for the human rights aspect you state a simply but weak statement of them not having the rights.
Yes, they should have the human right but they don't because there is a linguistically argument with the word marriage.
From a marriage contract a husband and or wife has legal rights to make decisions for their spouse on various issues if they are incapable of doing so or after their death. Now a civil union between to people of the same sex doesn't give the same rights in regards to those issues. So since gays/lesbians can't get marriage in that logistical right it is a persecution of their rights.
You can think they are going to hell if you like but don't you believe if someone else loved you they would want to make the right choices for you? now lets say you got hurt or something (I'm not wishing it on you it's just an example) and they were going to pull your plug and you didn't believe in that because of your religion but you never had it in writing. Your wife could make that decision but not your life partner because of the whole marriage contract. How powerless would your loved one feel if they knew they couldn't help you with your wishes?
Ohh yeah, I have a religion wondering for you, isn't the judgment suppose to be after you die about how your life was lead and not during it? as well with the people doing sin let them your all good.
You brought your arguments clearly and forthright which is very important in an essay/article. Also, I love your passionate writing spilling onto the page. Some would disagree and say not to show passion in writing of this nature that nonsense won’t come from me.
The biggest problem with this is the organization. I’m not saying your thoughts aren’t organized or unclear but that the order of the argument is a bit unsettling.
Anarchists understand that the "government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful."-
This paragraph should start the paper or be closer to the beginning. It’s always important to define things right away especially when it’s the main subject in the topic. Then you can talk about how Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Actually I lied, the starting point should be a different paragraph all together stating what your going to argue (this is a strictly academic form of writing and if your not into that than its all good)
Your opinion stance should be defined after that then you can do your back and forth of information between defending your opinion rather than Anarchists. Do the whole summation thingy at the end with a strong finishing stance.
My last thoughts are about your view of Anarchism (I think I’ve read some of Proudhon but it was awhile ago but that’s beside the point). In your discussion of egalitarian communist state compared as a similarity of anarchism is not true. In the egalitarian communist state there are leaders which isn’t Anarchists (even though in the Marx definition of communism those people should step down once the system has changed from their old system to the new system. Oh yeah, this stepping down has never happened but hey greed is fun). A better example but still not an example of Anarchism is the American Indian’s system of self governing egalitarian (this is also closer to Marx’s communism because the elders, I believe, only meet on specific issues and instances pertaining on when to move from place to place and rituals).
Now the problem with the lens you’re viewing both the egalitarian communist state and Anarchism boils down to the protection of property and wealth. To have either of these government systems and technically Anarchism is a system is to eliminate property and wealth because those are the basis of government systems. Now in communism there is no wealth but everything is shared and in Anarchism there is none of it all together. Book/movie quote time however it’s not exact I don’t have that much energy “if you wipe out the debt of the finical system everyone would be the same”-fight club. As I was saying, your lens of view is in your brilliant example of the internet as Anarchism (which I agree with 100%) but it was bent wrong because the crimes you define as happing are actually crimes through the use of the internet and not from its general governing boundaries; also the crimes are property or identity crimes (which only matters with a social status system of wealth and prestige) which is not part of the Anarchism system. When looking at a confuting subject, I like to tell people, actually you’re the first one but I’ll continue from now on, imagine you’re a fanatic obsessed with the subject understand it completely then make your arguments against it (basically I have a wild and compulsive researching disorder with every word about an issue).
Nicely written. I loved the descriptive line "fly around in a cosmic Crayola psychosis." I think this piece needs more hallucinogenic hypnoses description to emphasize why these kids want the high as well with a stronger argument that this high is just as bad as others.
Side note: I was a pharmacy technician at a local family-owned independent pharmacy for ten years. Unlike many technicians, I knew every person that came into the pharmacy by their first name unless it was their first time there. I had a scared respect for all the pills and complete disgust with the improper self medicating done by stupid people. We use to get these lists, about once a month, of pharmacy technicians not to hire because they took pills from other pharmacies they worked for. It's a sad and crazy environment mixed with addicts, the dieing, the grieving, the sick and the healthy. I loved it and now I miss it but I don't want to ever go back to it again.
I'm glad for your safety as well as the safety of your family but my heart grows sad reading the atrocities of your country. While reading this piece my mine fluttered back in time to the small college I attended four my undergraduate degree; safely behind books and ivory towers I read about many atrocities in a course named Holocaust and Genocides. We studied the events and the numbers as well as the social causes but to this day I will never fully understand any reasons for past events to dictating a need for a violent future.
I appositely love your voicing reviewing the bible as a long piece of overdone literature. the one huge thing you missed was state which bible version you reviewed. There are many differences between the different English versions as well as the ones translated into different languages.
(I finally remembered what I wanted to say) I did a sociological paper comparing 11 different Jesus films depiction of the new testament (apparently there are more than 11). Your little piece reminded me of the many minutes my finger spent pressing downward on the fast forward button to skip through useless walking. Some of the films were good but I only could take so much walking and watching of the same story.
Great writing. Keep on trucking.
side not: have you ever read the book "The Biography of God" its a literal translation of God's character of the old testament.
I like the idea of this 55 wordier, as well as, how you told the story. One thing that might improve it is to change the form (I'm not the most qualified person to suggest this in any right, hence the public posting, plus others should read it.) but if you go downwards with your sentences instead of next to each other It might be more effective (sorry everyone I don't know if that form has a name or any of the forms names). Good stuff either way. Keep on trucking.
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/profile.php/reviews/merlack/sort_by/r.review_creation_time DESC/page/10
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.26 seconds at 10:53pm on Apr 28, 2024 via server web2.
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
