CONSCIENCE, THE LORD'S VOICE

So what's the purpose of the badly written piece?  To convince people that we have a friend in Jesus and that he is responsible for all people having a conscience?  

I am very sorry to say that l am very surprised that you you don't understand the meaning of this poem, and you call yourself a poet. You are good for nothing except showing how jealous you are. I read your nonsensical poetry, which does not deserve my time to show you how weak it is. I leave to the readers to do see the difference between poetry and your writings. If you don't give me your real name, l'll never answer you. However, l know you from your nonsensical writings.

I didn't ask what the meaning of this "poem" was. I asked what your purpose was in posting it.  Perhaps you'll explain to readers here how the quality of what I write makes that question illegitimate or grounds for you playing the aggrieved "poet" who questionably (and fallaciously) uses his sense of being insulted as grounds for not answering the question that I asked. .

And please show where I have called myself a poet.

Once again you are engaging in the underhanded trick of putting words in my mouth and then using things I never said as grounds for  arguing against me (with ad hominems, no less).

And why would I be jealous of you?

All his friends have turned their eyes  
from his face that lacks the charm.  
No-one gives him hopeful warmth  
for good friendship of a sort.  

He has used his patience long,  
but he gets a lonely man.  
Where can he find someone who  
shares his serious points of view?  

A profound voice inside him  
has begun to call his name,  
"I accept your friendship, man.  
Speak with Me. l am your Lord.  

"I reply through My old print,  
whch l have placed in your heart.  
Speak with Me and l reply  
through your conscience, My dear friend."  

I previously made the claim that this was poorly written but without demostrating it’s deficincies.

So let’s note what they are.

1.  There is no indication of who the subject of this piece is.  And without it, we cannot understand why this person from whom “friends” have turned their eyes is suffering the rejection that you say is “his”.

2. L2 of the first stanza ends in deixis.  “The charm” – **what** charm is this? It also raises the question of why someone’s friends would reject a person who is their friend because his face lacks charm. .

3.  L3 is unintelligible because it’s hardly clear what “hopeful warmth” is.  And the opening of that line should read “no one”.  I have no idea what “no-one” means.  It is a solecism.


4. L4 is also unintelligible because “good friendship of a sort” is meaningless.  What is “friendship of a sort?     Did you mean to say that no one gives him any hope for even the smallest bit of warm friendship?  If you did,  you'll have to find another way of doing so.  Your evident desire to straitjacket what you are trying to say into a particular form which you (without evidence) claim is the form that good poetry has to have gets in the way of you actually saying what you apparently want to say.  I urge you to abandon it.

5. L5 contains an awkward inversion.  

6. L6 conveys the idea that the “he” you speak of obtains someone who is lonely unexpectedly (“but” he gets).  

7.  Since there’s no indication that the man you speak of has serious points of view or that what he wants relief from is having no one with whom he might share them, these lines are, from a narrative point of view,  gratuitous.  They seem to be cast more from a desire to get rhymes than to make sense.

8.  The way you have cast your first line of your last stanza gives the impression that the person who says “I reply through ..” is the rejected man.

9.  L2 of that stanza contains a mis-spelled word (whch) and it is set out in an awkward meter.  (Which **I** have PLACED IN your HEART -- iamb/iamb/amphibrach) that jars with the meter you have used in your other lines (troche/troche/anapest).

10. Furthermore, the sentiment expressed within this pieces is not only a cliche (Jesus is a friend of the lonely), it’s pious nonsense, especially when what one aches for is acceptance by other flesh and blood human beings.

Do I really  look with jealous eyes
upon the “work” that’s posted here by you?

Am I, as you have claimed,  a  man who’s sad
that he’s unable so to pose himself
as the sort of write that you are?

In other words,  as one who thinks that it’s mandatory
for any (self proclaiming) muse graced man
to be devising verse that shows that he’s
far more concerned with getting rhyme
than making sense
and writing lines that are replete with evidence
that grammar is a thing that he believes can be,
with warrant, all ignored, if not just waved away,
in circumstances when
the use of phrases in their proper and
syntactically correct, coherent  forms
would add a few intrusive and uncalled for syllables
to what he foolishly maintains is the required
good metrical alignment and the set-out  foot assignment
of a decent poem’s lines,
and he is guided by the questionable rule
that keeping to the strictures of some turgid,  antiquated
rhythmic measurements, supposedly laid down
by ante-free verse scribes
as what’s inviolable for actual verse,  is what determines
whether he’s produced true poetry?

The answer’s no. That’s for certain!
Oh why would I be jealous of
the things produced by someone who has little grasp
of how effective prosody is written.