nypoet228 Oct 2006

yes, i can tell the speaker wants to find God outside the rush and clutter of modern life; is that what you want to know? let's assume for the moment that someone does want to read this argument and might gain some meaning from it. you want to understand the source of my frustration with this piece? ask and ye shall receive:

stanza 1: yes, many people who misunderstand what science is think it explains why everything exists. who are some of these people specifically, and why should anyone care about them?

stanza 2: apparently the speaker didn't much care about who those misguided science people were either, because we cut straight to the dialogue with God, sans transition. the half-truths, simplifying twists, and manner of striving lack specific examples. do any exist?

stanza 3: it's unclear whether the speaker is part of the administration and rules over dullards, or whether dullards who rule are a description of an as-yet unnamed administration. is scientist supreme a person? a title of nobility? an ice cream flavor?

stanza 4: did you really mean "undue" (adjective) or "undo" (verb)? that line specifically doesn't make much sense as is. what sort of pretense? what sort of praise? haste doing what sort of work? carpentry? web design? tax law?

stanza 5: the article "an" sounds awkward. people give praise, not "a praise," regardless of the adjective in-between. regarding the wing, is this an angel's wing? a chicken wing? a wing of a building?

stanza 6: first two lines would be excellent, but the dreamer or the dream? i think that one's been done before.

stanza 7: please, please name me a specific curio? a clue? anything at all that might be specific to something?

stanza 8: interesting. to be free from certainty (or from lack of doubt if you like the double-negative), is exactly the essence of science, and anathema to most forms of religion. this idea would connect wonderfully to the beginning of the poem, were there some bridge in-between. barring any evidence to the contrary, a scientist must always assume the null set. unfortunately, in the case of this poem, so must i.