The Good:
Fine use of language and good flow with a decent rhythm. Some very inventive lines as well. The Not So Good:
I have trouble making sense of line 12, it's a word off, either missing or a choice.
It's technically sound. I Suggest:
Stanza 6, last line: "insomniacs" either lose the "s" or add a ', the former seems better.
Start the poem with lines 5-9 to mirror the ending,
Move the 4 lines beginning "It's been two years..." above the lines beginning "You tried to make tea..." This puts all the memories together. Finally:
This is good free verse. Some of language twists (three in the insomniac morning) are truly inspired. Keep at it.
The Good:
Decent use of language and excellent imagery. Lines two and four are particularly evocative. The Not So Good:
Technically sound. The last line seems to be too large in scope for the rest of the rest of the poem. The bulk of it is about small details. I Suggest:
Trim the scope of the last line. The field, the horizon or the landscape (the latter goes with the painting theme of the second half). Finally:
The last line is great, just not here. The rest is top notch. Keep up the good work.
The Good:
Nice free form, with the rigid rhymes at the very end.
The pace is very good, language consistent with the themes. Seems manic, yet controlled. The Not So Good:
If you're going to use periods (which should likely be semi-colons in some spots) might as well use commas too, at least in mid line spots.
Needs a spell check. I Suggest:
Line 21 & 22: split the two at "fleeing." Finally:
Great energy and really good execution, for the most part.
Write on!
The Good:
Good use of language. While seemingly about rejection, the light mood makes an interesting contrast. The Not So Good:
Lacks rhythm.
The ending seems like a non-sequitor. I Suggest:
Line 2: cut "almost" the next two lines are without reservations.
Line 4: substitute floated for flew.
In stanza one and three you rhymed line 2 with line 5, try to do it in stanza 2. Finally:
Good words, good conflict, so you don't have to go back to the drawing board. Just inject a little rhythm and meter. Plug on!
The Good:
Lots of action and the descriptions of her current mental state don't slow down the story. Good amount of detail. The Not So Good:
Everything seems solid technically and logically. I Suggest:
When she checks her clock go with three in the afternoon in place of "3 O'clock P.M."
Cut down the description of the mirrors falling in paragraph one.
Watch punctuation and unhelpful words. Example: "Di berated herself in dismay, "God I suck! What is wrong with me? The world could end and I lie here like a stunned slug.""(This paragraph could be merged with the paragraph before it, then simplified. They are essentially the same dialog).
She should be either "Di" or "Dianne" for the whole story, unless she is referring to herself.
Consider expanding her epiphany at the grave site: 1) She got out of the house. 2) The action interrupted her self loathing. 3) She thought of something bad that had little to do with herself (Trust me, this is a BIG deal). Finally:
Frantic start and good and deep the rest of the way. Plug on!
The Good:
The theme is followed well. There is good feeling throughout and the word choices are solid.
The first five lines are terrific. The Not So Good:
The rhythm is off in most of this. As I was reminded recently, it's essential to poetry. I Suggest:
Some trimming will go a long way to fixing the rhythm. Examples:
"And causemake your spirit to be free.
---
Believing in the words of the still, small voice inside."
Not only does it tighten the rhythm, it also make the line more active and immediate. It does all this without losing the original intent. Unlike a story, just a syllable or two radically alters the stream of a poem. Finally:
Don't think I dislike this, I honestly don't. There are many good ideas in here, as well as sound lines and rhythms. Just like all good work, it needs an edit. Ideas are the fun part, the rest is necessary work.
Plug on!
Assumes the word count restriction. The Good:
Good start and nice twist in the middle. The Not So Good:
Technically good. I just don't get the ending. I Suggest:
Change the ending. I'm pretty sure I know who the protagonist is. I sort of know what the last line is about, but it seems to need more set up. Finally:
Pretty good so far, not quite there. You can do it.
The Good:
Good images and excellent use of language. Clandestine rhymes and other hidden structures make it a delight to read. I like the poem inside a poem idea. The Not So Good:
Seems solid structurally. There are a few minor technical things, nothing that can't be defended artistically. I Suggest:
"in september" might be better attached to the previous line. Finally:
Good work, as always. Great feeling, if a little drier than your usual. Write on!
The Good:
A good presentation of the layer beneath a familiar. Decent rhythm and good rhymes. The Not So Good:
Lost the rhyme in lines 5 and 6.
Lines 9 and 10 seem a little out of sync. I Suggest:
Line 2: move "flickering flames" to the beginning in place of "with each." Finally:
Good feeling and good pace. I could really see the scene and the action. Keep up the good work.
The Good:
Causes some laughs and deep thoughts. The action is solid and easy to follow. The Not So Good:
Much of it seems rushed.
There is some punctuation that seems missing and are some awkward phrases and sentences.
At one spot you used "peeked" when you piqued. I Suggest:
Read this aloud. It will help find the spots I alluded to.
You need some paragraph splits too, in many places. Finally:
This has a fine, off-beat story to tell. The bones are there, just needs a bit of polish. Good start, continue on.
The Good:
Flows extremely well with few bumps. The action is smooth and easy to follow. The Not So Good:
Nothing here. Everything is clear, logical and technically correct. I Suggest::
I find it difficult to suggest anything to most first person histories, especially not to one as good as this. Finally:
I assume you started the screenplay. I can see the rejection scene in my head already. Excellent work; make some more.
The Good:
The first haiku has a good second line. The second one has that solid rhyme. Both have a good use of language. The Not So Good:
The first: 3-6-5 is not a scheme I'm familiar with.
The second: too many beats in the first line. I Suggest:
In the first you are close to 5-7-5 which is the traditional scheme.
The second: If you make the first line Neighbor trees you will have a modern form (a luna).
You could combine the two (they share a theme) going from traditional to modern, making your own unique form. Finally:
Some good language here. Just a little editing (to please the form restrictions) and you have something. Write on!
The Good:
A good study in contrast. Structure and rhythm are very good, as is most of the language. The Not So Good:
Technique is sound. I Suggest:
The lines about "sacrifice", "help another" and "believe in magic" seem contrary to a pessimist's credo. Cutting them or changing them (martyrdom for "sacrifice"?) would get it back to theme. Finally:
Good effort. Make more.
The Good:
Good settings and plot. You can feel the anguish.
The section concerning the suicide attempt is particularly well done. The Not So Good:
Though fairly well-written, the ending is inexplicable. She survived a stabbing long enough for grass to grow over the gravestones? For the sward and the tree to regenerate? I Suggest:
Redo the ending.
Cutting down should be easy. Check each adverb, adjective and phrase with an eye to trimming. Example: "Jassara looked up at the comical expression etched into his chiseled face. The sparkle in his ocean-blue eyes infected her with his joy. She wiped her hands on her apron and practically leaped into his muscular arms, trusting he would catch her. despite giving him no warning. He kissed her long and passionately. Like all their loving embraces, this one stretched into an eternity, in Jassara's mind, this timeonly to be interrupted by the impatient screams of a hungry infant." All without losing the basic points. Meanwhile, it seems cleaner, less passive and easier to read. Finally:
There is some good prose here. Some parts of it are almost poetic. Now comes the technical stuff, none of us like. Even though it's necessary. Keep at it.
The Good: "asway against a wind"
Language, feeling and meter are all great. It paints a good picture and flows very well. The Not So Good:
Seems clear of any awkwardness or error. I Suggest:
Realizing this is part of a larger work, noting to add. Finally:
This shows great visions and gifts. Keep it up.
Rating based on restrictions. The Good:
Excellent example of smart ass literature. Avoided the "This airport is so small..." line. Pace, rhythm and structure is good. Humorous and well organized. The Not So Good:
Looks clean and tidy from here. I Suggest:
Hit the nail on the head, nothing to add. Finally:
You had an assignment and hit the mark. Looks like a winner. Write on!
The Good:
Wonderful pacing, flow and language. The scenes are crystal clear and the point of view never wavers. A joy to read and full of good feeling. The Not So Good:
Nothing technically or subjectively unsound. I Suggest:
Had trouble figuring out if the trip to Chicago was literal or literary. Not sure if it's a good or bad thing, just a thing. Finally:
Reads like allegory (which in some ways, it is). Though largely metaphysical, it reads like a travelogue. Keep up the great work!
The Good:
A gut-wrenching story, beautifully told. Nearly perfect amount of detail and well set up. The Not So Good:
Solid technically and subjectively. I Suggest:
Needs some paragraph breaks. Example: Paragraph two, break at: "Our lives..."
Cuts will be easy. Example: Start of paragraph seven: "...dialed 911 as quickly as possible...". You can cut that or use something that is more descriptive like simply frantically. Finally:
It's amazing how well you related this. I'm not sure that I would be as lucid. Excellent work.
The Good:
Good pace and decent word choices. Paints a graphic scene. Tells a familiar story. The Not So Good:
The rhythms and rhymes break down a little here and there. I Suggest:
Cut "hot fudge".
It's much better with the rhymes, so work on the rhythm. Either change the rhyme scheme or add new lines, or subtract/merge lines, to even out the stanzas. Maybe more pit crew imagery. Finally:
This is cute and very different. Good work, make more.
The Good:
Good setting and decent characterizations. Though pithy, the dialog is pretty easy to follow. The Not So Good: Carl Jung, not "Claude".
Otherwise clear of any structural problems. I Suggest:
Go over all the adjectives and adverbs for necessity. Effectively a "first cut".
There needs to be some paragraph breaks performed. Particularly one in the patient's longest speech.
"Our patient" works if the narrator is the doctor, or another doctor. Finally:
Seems unfinished, as if you were about to move on to some conflict.
Write on!
The Good:
Very plain spoken and vibrant. Reminds my of some people in my life. The Not So Good:
It seems to stagger in spots. The rhythm is kind of spotty. I Suggest:
Stanza 1, last line: make "death strode right in." the 4th line.
6th stanza, last line: Split into two more "I will..." statements. Finally:
Seems like this was an old friend. Nice to honor people like this. Make more with this sort of good feeling.
The Good:
Just the right of detail. Decent dialog and the action is smooth. The story is easy to follow. The Not So Good:
Seems technically sound with no glaring plot holes. I Suggest:
Seems be a lot of mumbling going on.
Of course the footnotes help, but in nearly all the cases it was not hard to figure out (note 7) or an extra word or two in the text would make the point. I mention it because I'm sure you won't be footnoting in the final product, so you might as well fix it in the text now. Finally:
Good characterization, detail and flow. This is definitely going places.
The Good:
Nature and farming are always solid themes. Some very descriptive word choices. A largely smart poem. The Not So Good:
Line 1: "scorched" seems out of place.
The first few lines are out of rhythm.
Punctuation is sporadic. I Suggest:
Start the poem with line four.
Either cut the first three lines or rework them and use them farther down. Finally:
The language is solid, as I said. This shows promise. Tweak it and make more good ones.
The Good:
I can relate to this. Stanzas one through four were very good. Rythym and structure good. The Not So Good:
Consistent and virtually error free. I Suggest:
Cut the last two stanzas and work on five as the end. Once the mowing is done, it's Miller Time. Finally:
Nice place and wonderfully unique structure. Make some more like it.
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 0.42 seconds at 5:50am on May 05, 2024 via server web2.