This is a really beautiful poem that touches me deeply because I can relate so well. I used to be like that, still am a bit, though it's gradually getting better.
What I find particularly interesting about the style here is the breaking of the lines. Actually you could put the whole poem into one sentence, but it would make the reading experience very different. For example, the first time I looked at this poem I read you're afraid to let anyone stoke the fire in your chest for fear you will burn. Only on seconed thought I realised that there's still the them alive added. So, that's why I really like the style you wrote the poem in: depending on how you read it you find different meanings, and that makes this poem enjoyable to read again and again. Also, I really like you added author's comment. It gives the whole rather gloomy atmosphere of the poem a wonderful uplift. Thank you for such wonderful words.
Wow, I really like this. Especially since I misread stoke to be stroke, but I suppose that's what I wanted to read. It's interesting to see all the commenting and critique - I guess it goes to show how we all interpret it the way it suits us to relate to ourselves, even if we do it subconsciously. I like how these few lines have so much potential contained within them for us each to write our own stories between them of what's in our own hearts and heads.
1. Mystery is the most mystifying thing in life, it forces out minds to create an idea rather we like it or not. 2. How something is posed makes it more interesting for both verbal and image-based appearances (of course, your MLP fap-a-thon wouldn't know much more about poses then pony-butt though) 3. Again, how it would be verbally. It sounds more interesting with the pauses. 4. Nothing ever truly happens, we live in a world made solely by our own interpretations of it. 5. Once more, HOW IT WOULD BE READ.
Get the fuck out of here you piece of shit and get a life, you're not a critique you're just an asshole who ran out of porn of a kids show.
i do agree with you that randomwaffle was being a tad too harsh and not really being open-minded to the fact that there are many, many different ways to write poems. besides, everyone has their own unique style.
trolling is probably one of the funnest things to do. especially on omegle. however, i tend to stray away from it on sites like dA xD
Wow, this is hilarious. Your points are kind of weak, particularly #4, but more than anything it's abundantly obvious that you only replied to try to discredit me by bringing up (out of nowhere) the fact that I'm a brony, which isn't relevant to any of your five points (except by a huge stretch). Sorry I'm not going into much detail, I just find it hard to validate such a silly comment with a serious reply.
(Here's a fun activity: Since you've already established yourself as a stalker, have a look through my favorites. Find me the most pornographic image there, and I'll be happy to remove it.)
Maybe opening your mind and it'll work? and I was searching through your gallery to see if you had any right to critique anything (I.E your own poetry, which you obviously don't) You think a photo of an animated character crying over a grave is more depressing than the true reality posed in this poem, and I was flaming to see how you'd react to random violence to your fandom (Which was the first critique I saw on your main page).
The fact to the matter is, you care more for a fictional character then the real person posed here, and that discredits everything you've mentioned. You obivously are too closed minded to understand the beauty in abstract and imagery, and contradict yourself (I.E you mentioned something never possibly happening, when you showed more sympathy for a cartoon which can never happen do to it never existing.)
and as for 4, learn the basics of thinking more than one inch deep and maybe you'll understand the world better. (Also on your last bit, who the hell would favorite porn on DA? seems a bit useless since the rules forbid the possibility of anything more then ecchi)
I know a heck of a lot more about the fictional character than the subject of this poem. And until oaklungs tells me who the subject of the poem is, I have no obligation to believe it's about a real person.
The root of my opinion on this poem is that I got the distinct impression that oaklungs didn't know what he/she was talking about any more than I did. Since you seem to know more about it than me, I believe you know more about it than oaklungs. If I think a poem was easy to write, I don't feel obligated to be impressed. (Oaklungs, please prove me wrong.)
You are looking at it from a close-minded perspective, poems like these are about interpretation and mystery. There is never a cold hard fact in this world, we only presume there are, but when we are put to test with the ambiguity of abstract we have the opportunity to think for ourselves (Rather then accept the standard of 'real' others have put down).
I.E: I took this poem as a girl who is too afraid of showing who she truly is because she is too complicated for most to understand (which could be deeper interpreted as having split personality disorder, a high IQ, standard outlandish ideas, and many more)
while it could also be perceived as someone who has anger issues afraid of getting close to people a pyromaniac's love story a burn victim's regretful shyness a goddess who doesn't know how to show her affection and MANY MORE.
Open your mind and think for yourself for once, instead of seeing what is on the surface, most poems aren't made to follow standard literature practices.
(sorry my last comment was really jumbled btw, I'm sicker then hell and my medicine was messing with me. Hopefully this is quite a bit more organized.)
I'm not being closed-minded, I'm being cynical. (Maybe not much better, but know the difference.) My first impression was that the author was incompetent, and that he/she was forcing me to make up for their incompetence. That annoyed me. It also annoys me when an author is so vague that I'm convinced they don't know what they're writing about. If the author has a clear idea of what they're writing, but leaves it open to interpretation, that's fine by me. But I don't like when someone writes some words without thinking, and tells me I have to do all the thinking for them.
I'm tempted to write a poem myself and give it to oaklungs just to see if people can figure out which one is mine. (I have an idea for one already.) Too bad he/she never seems to read or respond to comments.
What are you exactly trying to achieve? You're going through all this effort pointing out flaws that only make sense to 'cynical' (which I define as paranoid) people. You're wasting your own life, as well as pissing off others for no good purpose. You're not a critic, you're not a assistance to the good of humanity. You're just an asshole on the interest who's unable to put more then five thoughts into reading. If you REALLY want something you'd hate, I recommend a book called 'Lord of the Flies'. It's a book full of interpretation, but (in my opinion) was actually done horribly because it TRIED to keep a solid story.
And what will that achieve? You're like a kindergartener trying to throw paper airplanes at world leaders to try to get something across. Seriously, if this is what you're doing to pass the time get a life man. (My defense for continuing this conversation is because I'm a troll, and it's just deliciously fun for me to piss off others)
i didn't write the poem so i can't be sure, but i think it means the person is afraid to let anyone try to help them for fear they'll scare them off or make them sad as well. Also, in poetry you usually don't pause at a line break, you pause at a comma and if there are non you pause where you naturally pause. That last bullet point is just mean, and i disagree. Her words are beautiful on their own, the lack of punctuation and capitalization means nothing at all or something different to everyone, but to me it symbolizes that this is a piece of a story you have to figure out, or don't, and it doesn't need a period because it's not over. it's never over. "the poem's biggest flaw"- shut up, please and thank you. there are plenty of ways you could have worded that and that particular one was no help at all and simply a jab at the author. If you can't find the meaning then stop blaming a wonderful writer for your poor reading.
The "fire in your chest," I imagine, symbolizes some positive trait of the subject that could be magnified by being close to others. "Burning them alive", though, would need to stem directly from the fire, out of the subject's control. What positive trait could burn someone alive?
There doesn't seem to be any reason to the line-break placement, besides to make each line about the same length. Regarding the no-caps and no-punctuation style, I felt that the author only did it as a quick-and-easy way to look poetic. I was kind of angry when I wrote that, though, so maybe I didn't state what I meant as clearly as I wanted.
I honestly tried my best to find meaning. I thought about it, I considered various possible intents, I read and reread it. The poem sounded nice at first, but it fell apart under my analysis. I kept running into the dead end I explained in my first paragraph. The more I thought about it, the more of a mess it became in my mind.
i took fire to mean strength, which is a positive trait, in a way, as that is how it's usually used, fire usually symbolizes a rage or passion for something, especially when it's depicted as being in your chest. the person is afraid to let anyone in, relationship or friendship wise, because though people say friends can make you stronger this person feels as if they are no good for anyone, that they'll only bring them down, "burn them alive".
i agree it can seem like there is no meaning to the line breaks, at first glance at least. but if you take a closer look, she spaced it out a bit like paragraphs are, if more specifically, by different subjects, meanings, messages, or feelings.
"you're afraid" -and the poem is set, the point of view, the tone, and the emotion
"to let anyone" - "let" is such an important word here, it means authority, power, but paired with "afraid" gives it so much more depth, not just afraid and powerful, but afraid of your own power. additionally "anyone", it makes it broader, this now includes, family, friends, anyone who would try to help.
"stoke the fire" -this is essential to the poem, and needs to be separate from the previous and next line because it is speaking of an action, and finally shows us what it is inside the person that warrants this fear yet power.
"in your chest" -and suddenly it BELONGS to the person, it is a part of them, as well as a strength as you would usually assume it is a barricade, it makes them afraid to get close to anyone, and the signature, "in your chest" gives a feeling solidarity and familiarity
"for fear" -yes it was said once before but then it was simply stating how they FELT while it is now stating WHY they feel like this
"you will burn" -now on its own this would seem like the person is afraid of what others would do to them, but we have to remember that this is a poem and we are most definitely not supposed to pause here, while they might be separated like paragraphs they are not. this is a connection to "fire" with the burn, and WILL is important, not "might" or "could", WILL. they are sure that this will not end well.
"them alive" -and this is what shows that the person is afraid of what their strength will do to others, whether they hurt them unknowingly, leave them behind unwillingly, or up show them and consequently making them feel as if they have failed. their still alive of course, but the person will have ruined something in them, some loving aspect, some want for friendship.
as for the lines all being about the same length, that is something i quote enjoy and very likely has no meaning but i like to think it does, "for fear" and "them alive" are the shortest lines and also seemingly the most vulnerable i tone, a nice correlation , even if unintended, though the smaller words and less of suggests a subconscious thought for it.
and yes, REGARDING, the lack of capitalization and punctuation, it is most definitely not "quick and easy" i don't think you know how hard it is to break away from everyday mundane structured writing and still produce the same emotions in a way you were never taught too. i understand that is only how YOU felt, and appreciate that you didn't state it as a fact. however, we could also turn that around to say what if she, or any other writer who does the same for that matter, simply felt like it? i see nothing wrong with a "quick and easy way to look poetic" because without any other aspect to the poem it would never be put up to debate, it would be immediately disregarded. and besides, if it works, good!
overall the poem, in so few words and descriptions it is astounding, paints a beautiful picture of a not to familiar but understandable fear, not wanting to hurt the ones you love. though the context is completely different and the subject is the polar opposite, if you have seen or heard of the movie "Frozen" it draws many similarities here.
maybe it could have been spaced better, i for one can't see how, but i suppose that must be an opinion.
see you have a choice when you read a poem, and depending, you can read it once, even a million times, and love it, think it's beautiful, even memorize it.
or, you can analyze it, sometimes it ruins the emotion but commonly if you loved the poem the first time around there must be something in the specifics that you'll love even more.
sometimes you're almost forced to go for the second option, i say almost because it is still a choice, but because you so blatantly and obviously did not understand and therefore disproved, i definitely didn't want to leave someone thinking they had been let down by a poem, and certainly not leave such a wonderful writer thinking her work was not adequate, or unnecessary even.
(i'm really sorry for how long this turned out to be but man, if any critique i wrote was like this people might even pay me, but then again not all critiques are defending one of my all time favorite writers.)
You can think of it to mean a lot of different things, I see it as being afraid to let people love you because it could just end up hurting the both of you. Idk how you weren't able to find a meaning...
Any meaning I came up with led to contradiction under close analysis, unless we assume the symbolism is very shallow. It makes perfect sense if you don't consider the fact that a fire can lash out without the narrator's control. If the fire represents something desirable, how can the same fire burn someone alive? And if the fire represents something dangerous and hard to control, it should be extinguished, not stoked.
I imagine the fire is something desirable, which leaves me confused. If it's love (my best guess), it leads to a conundrum: Fire works by growing stronger until it gets out of control and burns someone. Love (on its own) doesn't hurt anyone, especially not by growing stronger.
It's trying to say that it's both desirable and dangerous... also I think that you're taking this really literal. Fire does not represent love in every single fashion, it's being compared to it. Also love can hurt people, in several complicated occasions, but they're still occasions.