Re: Racism 4 by Dovina	18-Jan-06/12:15 PM
Tons of cliches, some lines make no sense ("sad if for well-being"?), unnecessary and incongruous archaism ("twas"), weak verbs, nothing really original or interesting.
Re: The funeral and the table by Caducus	18-Jan-06/12:06 PM
While I really like the details, the "list" that begins it, strong images notwithstanding, seems to weaken it overall. "The slow procession exit gets faster from the grave" might even be a good place to start it (in media res) and then flashback somehow to incorporate those earlier images? Not saying that's the way to go, necessarily, but play with the sequence--doesn't necessarily have to be linear, and may be better if it's not. I really like the pyre ending with a personal touch (the table).
Re: Three Skinheads by Caducus	18-Jan-06/12:02 PM
Some really excellent lines and details. Toss the road cliches (well travelled, less travelled). Some awkward language ("Slit throat eyed and green gloved hit me like Mussolini on rope"--not sure what that means; think you mean slit-throat eyes, but even that is an awkward phrasing, maybe rework it?) Look at your verbs too and see if they're strong enough. Also, finally, think this might be stronger if you dumped the last stanza. Don't get me wrong--I think it's really good and even more promising!
Re: Heirophant by cyan9	18-Jan-06/11:57 AM
The Hierophant is the Key that corresponds to the High Priestess, right--symbol of social conformity, rules and ritual, all of that? I'm not seeing the connection here. "Reticent to the sparks" doesn't really work in terms of grammar/meaning. Whilst is an archaism. (Just pointing out some things to think about.) Not sure what this is about--you've got some fresh images but it doesn't hang together (for me, anyway) just yet.
Re: Jailbird by zodiac	17-Jan-06/1:45 PM
You've got such a great "eye" for details. This is good. I bet it'll end up even better. Was the repeat of "redecorated" deliberate? Jails are seldom on main streets (other than holding cells in police stations)--even county jails are behind gates and wires and fences, so there'd be no storefronts, generally, and no sidewalks to pace. Am I taking this way more literally than you mean it? I sometimes do that; miss the metaphor.
Re: a comment on Sky All Around Me (goddess edit) by ecargo	17-Jan-06/1:37 PM
Yeah, I tried to do that and ended up with "lithe acolyte of spring," for chrissakes. Think I'll just slink along.
Re: a comment on Reap by ecargo	16-Jan-06/5:32 PM
More mood than meaning.
Re: a comment on Green things by ecargo	16-Jan-06/5:23 PM
<waggles my fingers to z> Actually--a typo. It should be "we break like ice." You'd think I'd proof my own stuff, huh? ;-)
Re: a comment on Green things by ecargo	16-Jan-06/5:21 PM
Actually, I reverted to an earlier version. Hardly a major revision, by the way. This has been kicking around in one form or another for ages, and I've never gotten it to a point that I liked. Probably past time to lay it to rest.
Re: Racism 3 by Dovina	15-Jan-06/9:56 PM
I like this better than the others--a little more oblique but more effective for it. "Two became one flesh" is a cliche; might want to recast in more original words. Maybe start off with a stronger word than "It"--what hit like an asteroid? Stands in for the real word, which is always less direct and, thus, effective.
Re: a comment on Racism 2 by Dovina	15-Jan-06/9:19 AM
Superfacial may be my new favorite (non)word.
Re: Racism 2 by Dovina	15-Jan-06/9:18 AM
The main problem with this is too much telling, not enough showing. Dave Chappelle does a bit about being driven into the projects and knowing that's where they were headed because: "gun store, gun store, liquor store, gun store." That raises an immediate image, just those few words. That's what's missing here. More "liquor store, the greasy hot-dog stand" and less narrative and blatant point-making.
Re: levity kiss by skaskowski	15-Jan-06/9:11 AM
I get the "rules"-Leviticus intent, I guess (Leviticus is the book that deals w/ rules and ritual, right?), but the connection seems flimsy.
Re: A Haiku by amanda_dcosta	13-Jan-06/10:16 PM
Or even six-eight-six (or some other variation) if done right. The syllable count is the least of it. Very few (not I) can do it well, though. Your name is fun to say.
Re: eat your dinner meats by calliope	13-Jan-06/10:12 PM
"beef we don't need is still beef indeed" nailed it for me.
Re: a comment on cat by Dental Panic	13-Jan-06/7:16 AM
Who says that? No atheist I know. I can't imagine anyone out of their teens claiming anything so broad and patently ridiculous. Greed underlies most "religious" conflicts--it's just the poor suckers fighting for the ideal, it always seems. If you got rid of man, there'd be no war; otherwise? Not likely. I didn't say anything here; I just noted what Einstein said. Sure it has merit. And there are plenty of examples of it in practice--do you think altruism is linked exclusively to religion? That's nonsense. So-called "religious" people (many of whom seem to think that declaring that they "believe in" God gives them some sort of automatic moral superiority) are no more likely to be moral, kind, good, giving, just, etc., than nonreligious people.
Re: a comment on cat by Dental Panic	12-Jan-06/7:50 PM
Einstein, too (of whom the fundies like to say "even Einstein believed in God," as if that makes God a fact), said that he could not believe in a "personal god," who gave a rat's ass about the fate of tiny beings on an inconsequential planet in an inconsequential galaxy at the back of beyond (my paraphrase and bias, of course). In his own words: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere . . . A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Re: The Hermit on the Thoroughfare by http://mulberryfairy	12-Jan-06/2:47 PM
Some good details (I like the cubed trinity) but a lot to process. Not sure I get the connection btwn food and birth (elimination?). I think you could drop the first two lines and do a little paring elsewhere.
Re: Birmingham gardens by INTRANSIT	11-Jan-06/8:08 PM
Late to the party (as always--just ask <~>, and I brought nasty cookies too). Some nice details here--really like "the specific gravity of my footsteps"; "to be like moss"; "fanning pinecones." Going to join the "joking oak" naysayers though (for what it's worth). Nice work--good luck with the submission.
Re: cat by Dental Panic	11-Jan-06/12:40 PM
Heh--clever. Fun w/ quantum mechanics! The connection between S's cat and what follows is a little tenuous though. [Cecil Adams' ("The Straight Dope" author) has a nice little versification of the explanation of Schrodinger's cat, for those who, like me, need a refresher: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_122.html ]