Who is he?

Look, anybody can throw idealized visuals out there. I knew this new style wasn't just that, and it has a direction, but it was really weak.

I rejected it from the first line. Too idealized, too flowery- it made for melodrama.

I would much rather something that built up to a specific line, ONCE YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED AN AUTHORITY IN THE READER'S MIND THROUGH CONTROL OF HIS OR HER EMOTIONS. Look, it was like you tried to affect the reader's emotions from the first line, and it doesn't work like that. Again, it makes for melodrama.


Its like this : Come dressed as a slave but pull out the scimitars once you made friends who think your their slave. But still make inferences to the sort of weapon you carry.


Don't come dressed as a queen, and expect the reader to bow to weakness simply because well, your dressed as a queen. Writing is alot of things but its not fake, and people see through clothing.

So once again, better to show, and not tell. Show your power when the time is right. Just as the slave w/ the scimitars.
Do this, and don't come dressed as a queen, and expect people to go along with it. This isn't at all a matter of fakeness.

Overall, show, don't tell.

This idea is pretty small, and personally, i was unimpressed.

You experiment with a new style for you here, and it is successful.

The truths you've cornered behind your comments in the poem are admirable. I particularly like the guiltlessness you associate with the innocence in wondering.

It is also cool how this stanza:

"Like a viper he pounces,
waiting for the moment of vulnerability,
taking his chance with absolute authority."

Is true for any decision a human being makes. Whether it's to take a second helping of food, or take a man's life, the central truth to decision making is the authority of the ego.

To take, for me. The "perceived lack of vision," that "gives an objectivity that is profound" is another great idea, because it is so demonstrably true. The inability of Man to see himself as what he is, molecules in complex arrangement, is supported historically (as they could not have known such things) but the profundity of the human beings' attempts to define such basic molecular fact has outlived the birth of our knowledge of self through science.

It seems as though this inability to simplify ourselves will forever be pushed into the realm of that which we do not know - or we'll mentally evolve (for our bodies have not in 150,000 years) past this inability.

Your points could be made with greater weight. I am predisposed to the logical thinking behind this poem, but so, so many others will not be, and even many more will miss it altogether.

All in all, it's because this poem 'tells' too much. It is the struggle and duty of a writer to 'show'. You cannot understand what someone tells you, unless you already know the reasons they are telling you, and so it becomes either an act of faith, or an act of redundancy.

But humans have this uncanny ability to be shown, and to see what they're being shown.

It's by no means a simple mandate, a bit like capturing a segment of the incomplete human understanding it, teaching it validity either through emotion or logic, and then releasing it again into the wild.

Solid ideas, great scope, could be better conveyed.