grim task

perhaps i will work on rewriting this line throughout; it will change verse 1 if i do since i followed the villanelle rhyme format...

the idea is that the grim task is a rather bland one as well, very much devoid of life, if you will. in that case, i guess it is successful, eh? :P

Oh, and 'for what he seeks' would feel better to me. Don't be too concerned about making the rhyming lines conform entirely, as that can limit poetry too much sometimes.

Thanks, Ranger. i do hope you get a chance to re-read, as i have tried to work in a few double meanings here.

the line is supposed to be "he cares to say". i will work on painting the "wake and pray" line a bit; didn't sit perfectly with me either.

thanks.

thank you for your insightful comments. truly, i appreciate them.

you are correct on the gravedigger, although i had not intended the preacher. i have intended a less corporeal character as well, albeit this portrayal makes the character rather sinister in a way. also, pay is not always cold, hard cash. another double meaning is in verse 4. i won't spoil; see if you can find the pun.

i am not sure how you mean that every verse is geared toward "weak". unless you mean that the subject appears as a passive bystander, not a "mover & shaker", if you will. which is true, at least in the verses i have written.

i appreciate your reading, and yes, you have done very well. thanks again.

Did you spend even thirty seconds reading the poem?

if you dont like the content, fine. but to put a poem in so poor a place purely on personal punctuation preferences is pretty petty. (how's that for alliteration?)

to be honest, i do like the British spelling of some words, but it is not intuitive to me. if they were to be changed, how would that affect your impression of the poem?

addressing the use of "ev'ry": some may pronounce the word "every" as "ev-er-y", which would have thrown off the rhythm of the reading. to ensure that a two syllable pronunciation was used, thereby preserving the rhythm, i used "ev'ry". which, in actuality, is not archaic at all; to this day, do not ommitted letters in a word call for that punctuation called an apostrophe?

whereas punctuation will also help with the phrasing and rhythm of the piece, capitalisation (British spelling for your pleasure) does not - in my opinion - have any bearing. i tend to write without the use of capitals because i prefer to, and this is not without precedent(e e cummings). however, punctuation i do not forgo as it also helps collect certain parts of the written content together.

so if you read the poem and have some actual reasons why it is rated with a 2, i would be appreciative should you care to share your thoughts with the rest of us.

Take your pompous British opinions and shove them up your wrinkled cunt.

Do you not find it amusing that the United Kingdom is simply another American pawn in the workings of this world? I do. So fuck your superior clingings to "English Proper", twat.

British clinging to rigidity stifles any evolution in language. Go roll in dusty volumes of the Lord Faggatus.

Thanks, Christof.

"Our most pompous novelists" leads me to believe you reside "across the pond" from the Brits, yet you spell "metre" after the British way. I find no fault here, just interesting.

I like "connexion" much better than "connection", myself, and for some reason "theatre" seems more approriate than "theater"; I guess a bit of British pomp is appropriate for some words. I rather do prefer the British spelling of most words (among them the ones that Edna so sweetly pointed out), but when they spell "truck" as "lorry" it really makes no sense. (heh)