I am impressed with the writing. The style is clear, flowing, consistent and efficient.
I would Change “right or wrong” to “right and wrong”
In the passage -
Sometimes the temptation is a lot more significant than a perfectly good order of bread sticks that have been left, untouched, in a shopping cart for what couldn't have long enough to be covered by anything my immune system couldn't handle. Like, wallets and credit cards.
“Like, wallets and credit cards.” Is not a sentence and in any event the comma is unnecessary. It’s not that funny anyway and you might try an active, rather than passive voice, for instance:
I admit to the occasional temptation of untouched bread sticks left in a shopping cart, not to mention real valuables such as: wallets, keys and credit cards.
I thought the ending was good. It was surprising enough to me to add some suspense to the story.
I thought this poem presented a clear sense of gratefulness. I believe you have accomplished the original intention of the poem.
While reading your poem I wondered whether the following might make it stronger:
1) you start off with a strong rhyming scheme of A B C B, when you rhyme "past " and "iconoclast". But then the scheme disapears. It may be better to avoid that first rhyme so as not to give readers a false expectation.
2) Your ending prayer that we can have a restful sleep surprised me. When in a grateful mood I am thankful for those who sacrificed so that I may lead the life I want to lead, not just so I can go to bed at night.
3) You poem expresses gratitude both to those in the military and to God. It may be a stronger poem to focus on one or the other.
4) It was unclear to me whether "legality" in the title referred to "legal ownership" or the "laws which govern the soul" that ambiguity may be fine with you, but I wanted you to know that I had that confusion.
I enjoyed this article and learned something about San Francisco. I will trust you with the facts, but there were some changes I would make to the presentation if it were mine.
I would take the "mid" out of this line. "founded mid-June, 1776" Given the time-span it is not helpful and makes it sound as though you are not real certain about the specific date.
This, "Upon independence from Spain in 1821, the area became part of Mexico, and the mission system gradually ended, and its lands began to be privatized. " is a run-on sentence. Try to break it up into two sentences, maybe: "In 1821 the land was ceded from Spain to Mexico. The Spanish mission system gradually eroded and the land became privatized." Or whatever is factually true.
You might indicate that it became part of a US territory after the Mexican-American war.
Change named to "renamed" in "expanded and named San Francisco."
I would change "helped cause the city to grow rapidly" to "contributed to the city's rapid growth." or more forcefully - "caused rapid urban growth."
Change "continued to grow population wise" to "and the city's population continued to grow." or increase.
This "San Francisco has not only become financially affluent, but is one of the top tourist destinations, known for its cool summers, rolling hills, and landmarks such as Golden Gate Bridge, cable cars, and Fisherman's Wharf, but also Chinatown." is another run-on sentence. Try "San Francisco has become financially affluent. The city is a top tourist destination featuring, the Golden Gate Bridge, cable cars, Fisherman's Wharf and Chinatown. San Francisco is located on a salt-water bay and rises into the surrounding rolling hills. The maritime climate keeps the summers cool." However you want to do it the run-on sentence needs to be broken-up.
"Climate-wise, in June or July the fog rolls in and is its thickest then." needs to be edited. "Climate-wise" is best used as a humorous colloquialism, but does not work well in a journalistic style. Try, "In June and July a thick fog rolling in off the bay is common." You might move the reference to cool summers in the paragraph above down to this one which is focused on weather and climate.
Consider changing "Aside from being a city bursting with activity, entertainment, and financially set, to this day, there are countless homeless people living on the streets. " "to this day" is unnecessary and "financially set" is closer to slang than proper English. You could say, "The well-to-do city is bursting with activity and entertainment, but is also a residence for countless homeless people living on the streets."
I would also take out "One more thing." I believe you should either just say what you want to say or you could introduce the sentence with "Lastly" or "A word of caution: "
These are my ideas. If they help fine. If not, don't use them. I could tell that you cared a lot about your subject and hope to see more of your writing.
It seems to me that the logic is a little loose in some of these arguments.
You state that "In nature, several phenomenon <snip> are beyond any material explanation so far." The phrase "any material explanation" begs the question that other explanations such as transcendent or divine explanations are possible. The phrase is awkward and would be better stated in the form, "In nature, several phenomenon are not yet fully understood."
While science does not possess all of the answers, the knowledge that has been achieved without resorting to the metaphysical is substantial.
You state, "Something had to precede creation of material universe." That is just common sense, but common sense is not always right. Science sometimes gives us a counter-intuitive answer. "Precede" is a temporal concept. If there is no time before the universe existed, nothing precedes it.
You state, "Therefore, until such time that we are able to find suitable material explanations for these phenomena, existence of God or metaphysical influences or transcendental influences can’t be ruled out.
Hence, God can only be a fact and not fiction until and unless proved otherwise."
That is a fallacy. I will grant you that science has not ruled out the existence of God. There is still room for God even if everything science tells us is true. But that does not justify a belief in God until proven otherwise anymore than it justifies an atheistic perspective until proven otherwise.
To say that God cannot be ruled out is the same as saying that God is possible.
The fact that God is possible may be an argument against the irrationality of believing in God, but possibility of God does not justify a belief in God until proven otherwise.
This article is presented as an argument, but I do not believe the argument is sound.
Even though the poem is a bit self-absorbed for me, it is tightly focused and holds tight to the image of nature as an obstruction of your anguish.
What I like best about the poem is the ending. "..the guilt.." is wonderfully ambiguous. The poet could be talking about some kind of guilt that is central to his/her anguish. Or the poet could be talking about the guilt of those who won't open to the poet's anguish.
I did not particularly like the bitterness that comes through in the stanza where the motives of those who "have enough" are projected. If it were my poem I would consider striking the whole stanza -
"They have enough.
If they heard mine
action will be needed, compassion felt,
admitting their own grief."
I think the poem would be stronger without that section.
... for what it's worth - the poem is yours after all.
Keep writing.
Printed from https://writing.com/main/profile/reviews/mallory
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 0.12 seconds at 1:07pm on Nov 08, 2024 via server WEBX2.
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
