Don't be afraid to find the local poo station Dont shit ya pants when ya need to pooJust be a man and go to the loo You can't blame it ...


I do love to find me some humorous poetry on Inkstained. It's hard to overlook the opportunity when "Controversy in the poo" presents itself on the dashboard.

I'm going to spend the first part of this review cleaning up some of your grammatical and spelling errors. I know that this piece is lyrical, but at some point, people will see it written down and therefore want to have some consistency in the presentation.

When they smell someone elses poo and think its theres


When they smell someone else's poo and think it's theirs

Is an example. You can probably see where I'm going with this. You use contractions correctly in places ("There's") and then completely ignore it in other places ("Dont"). You need to make sure to add your apostrophes correctly. This piece is overflowing with colloquialisms and shortened words, but if you're going to use such language, you should try to ensure that you apply the slang consistently.

I recommend you go over this piece and identify all of the places where you are using shortened words in place of their longer brethren. 


Flowin (Flowin'), dont (don't), its (it's)

And so on. There are spelling errors too, such as "cheaks", which I'm sure you know should be "cheeks". But I'm treating this as a very rough, working first draft, so I know that you'll fix this if you go over the piece with an eye to check for errors.

I see a few other places where you can make this piece more enjoyable for those reading this and not hearing it.  

Things like :

You can't blame it on a friend look over there
then stick a bit of poo in their underwear

Should have quotations added so that it is apparent you're dealing in dialogue.

You can't blame it on a friend: "Look over there!"
Then stick a bit of poo in their underwear

And believe me, writing a serious piece of critique about that last line was a stretch for even my completely serious personality.

You need to get some punctuation happening in your lines. You've got this piece set up as rhyming couplets and even though I am able to find your rhythm with a little bit of experimentation, some use of commas on the individual lines in this would help greatly when it comes to finding the flow. Not everybody knows to add folky chords to a poem to find the beat.

This work reeks of ... well, it's just a great tongue in (mouth) cheek bit of fun, but as a written work, it has a lot of room to improve.

When you're trying to convey a song in the written form, you have to make sure to reflect the tone of the song as accurately as you can without singing it at the reader.

This is a funny piece, and I'm sure that at least 0.2% of readers will know the pain of having to lift their balls when they go to poo lest their excrement wind up coating the walls. But, as it stands now in the written word, it has some way to go before I'll be safety-wiping after every bit of mild flatulence.

I’ve been caught in a moment;it happened with our hands clasped,our lips parted, our hearts racing. We leaned over the precipice,knowing full well the fallonly existed in our hearts,but terrified ...


I have to ask: what is the significance of a piece that is written entirely in italics? There does not seem to be any real point in the styling of the text; italics are meant to highlight emphasis, but that is lost as soon as one makes the entire piece italic. The italics could be an accident of formatting, so this review assumes the whole piece to be written in normal text.

I didn't dislike this poem — If anything, I wanted this poem to surprise me in some way. I wanted it to throw a curveball and break away from the tired imagery from which it it introduced itself to me. I wanted so many things, but unfortunately, few of those things became visible.

A couple of issues present themselves firmly as I begin to review this piece:

though it felt a meager while in retrospect.

This is one of the major players when it comes to understanding this poem. "Meagre" (I'm an Aussie, I'll flip 're' because it's how we do things) is not a noun. How can something "feel a meagre"? Poetry gives you the license to push boundaries and stretch convention, but that license requires you to give some context when breaking of rules. "Meagre" is not, and in this poem is not redefined to be, anything but an adjective. To say something is "a meagre" without giving any context for such a redefinition left me wondering how this line is meant to be perceived. The best I could take from it was that there was supposed to be something after "meagre". 

Though it felt a meagre existence
Though it felt a meagre life
Though it felt a meagre world ... 

But really, I think you meant something different. I think you meant that the fall you perceived as lasting forever actually felt minuscule. So really, that stanza could be changed to be:

It seemed as though I fell for forever,
though, in retrospect, the time I fell was meagre

I could be isolating this point — and harping on it as I am wont to do — when it was simply a mistaken use. If that is the case, forget I ever raved on for three paragraphs about it.

your lips, slight parted. 

This has to be a typo. I assume that you meant to use "slightly" in this case, but in a poem that is titled as such, this typo presented quite a distraction.

Now that I have made the obvious errors visible, I want to mention a couple of things that aren't so apparent.

We leaned over the precipice,
knowing full well the fall
only existed in our hearts,
but terrified of the drop, nonetheless.

I feel that this stanza has its sentences backwards. "knowing full well the fall" really threw me out. I could understand what was being implied after I had read the whole stanza, but walking in to the paragraph I was lost. I believe that you could make a few adjustments and get this stanza singing like you wanted it to.

We leaned over the precipice,
knowing the fall existed only in our hearts,
but terrified of the drop, nonetheless.

I know it removes an entire line, but I as a reader, knew what you wanted to say, and juggling language and flow as you did in that paragraph only delayed the inevitable.

I said it at the beginning — and know that there have been multiple reads between then and now —, this piece has nothing "wrong" with it, it just has a really hard time selling what is right with it. The language and the style is apparent and the ability to let me, as a reader, know what you're feeling in terms of the love you've fallen from an edge for is apparent, but it does settle on my shoulders like a cloak I've donned many times before; the cloak is not raggedy, but I'm not wearing it out to impress anybody.

This is review is the opinion of one man who has resigned himself to be alone forever, so be sure to consider that when taking this critique on board. I don't dislike this piece, but I have not really been convinced I should like it either.

The beach spread around into a long peninsula and across the water I watched a bonfire flicker into life and grow. Waves ebbed softly away from us. Foster sat with ...


I'll start by saying that I haven't seen the film clip or even heard the song that inspired this piece, and quite frankly, I don't want to — that's partly out of a fear that this story isn't as original as it feels to me right now, and partly because this is such an intriguing piece of fiction that combining and attaching it to other media would lessen its impact on me. So this review is based on having no knowledge of Sigur Ros. This review is also covering both parts of this story.

There is a lot to love about this story. I especially like the way you describe people with just a few of their attributes and leave the rest to be filled out by my imagination. And I love the trance-like, almost emotionless state of the narrator's telling. At first, the narrator's seemingly deadpan reaction to some pretty horrific events felt out of place, but once I reached the end and applied the narrator at the end to the rest of the story, it was a stroke of brilliance.

I couldn't tell for certain whether the very short length of your phrases is a stylistic choice in this piece, so I went and read some of your other prose and found that it does seem to be a trait of this. For the most part, the short sentences worked very well and it added to that sense of "something not quite right" I felt about the narrator while reading the first part.

However, there were some areas where the short phrasing was more of a hindrance than a help to the manufactured jerkiness of the flow. One of those areas is your use of dialogue tags.

It improved a lot in part 2, but in part one, there was quite a bit of "said X", "X said", "I asked", "he said". The first type was the worst for mine. "Said Foster", "Said the hitchhiker", "Said the officer". Dialogue tags are supposed to blur into the background of stories, and studies have shown that when they're effectively used, readers can't even remember them being there. A lot of the time when you're using dialogue tags, you're using them simply to tag who is speaking. Literally. There is no continuation of descriptive action or mention of tone or anything apart from a label for the speaker.

In your story, you juggle characters well and you don't have many, so there isn't really a great need to tag the speakers so obviously. I know it's a small gripe, but I felt the need to mention it because I noticed it when I was reading without any intention to review. It's just something to consider.

“Evening boys,” the officer leaned toward the car window. “Do you know why I pulled you over?” 

The other area where the succinctness of phrases caused problems came in cases where it stopped sounding like emotionless description and started sounding like a list of bullet points. An example of this problem, as I see it, is in the first paragraph of part 2. It feels like a set of instructions in a screenplay more than a narrated story. I was able to get through without really noticing it on my first read through, though, and picked this up as an identifiable area when I started to review.

There's a few grammatical anomalies in both pieces — eg., a strangely placed comma before "until" in the last line of part 2, a strange, narrated piece of dialoge "I told him yes, I supposed we were." — but I can tell that you would find these yourself when going over the piece with an eye to review; you have great control over the rules of language.

The last points I'll make are about a few weird issues with tenses. This story is told from the first person in past tense, but in this second half, you foreshadow things that the narrator now knows. You talk of ifs and maybes with Heiko, but later, in the same tense, you reveal that Heiko was in the fire and then gone and you know that Heiko's sister was not near the fire:

Maybe Heiko had found his sister and they were celebrating. ...
Maybe it was Heiko’s sister, the one who lived near here. I hadn’t seen Heiko since he ran into the woods. ...

Followed by:

I made out the shapes of three slender dogs circling it and in the middle, tied to a post, was Heiko, burned and sweating, exhausted from screaming, with a bright yellow ribbon stuffed into his mouth.

With the way I believe this story is being recalled, those first couple of lines could maybe be altered to better reflect that it's what the narrator is thinking, more than what the narrator knew. I hope that makes sense, I find it hard to explain now that I have begun.

So there we have it. I really enjoyed this piece of fiction. It has left me with a lot of questions but I still don't want to watch the film clip that inspired it because you have painted some vivid images in my mind. The things I have noted in this review I have noted because I was reviewing; it doesn't matter what it is, there is always room for improvement. This is a great piece and I hope my thoughts make a lick of sense to you. I'll look forward to more of your work.

A couple overcome their ghosts of the past and begin afresh.


I really like the tone of this piece, it's informal and has a real kick of character to it. It's not trying to bring love back with flowery imagery and monotonous diatribes of love and affection, it's getting down to business and telling it how it is.

After my first read through, and second, and then after reading your notes, I don't think the biggest problem with this piece is the last stanza, I feel the biggest problem with this piece is grammar and punctuation, and the effect that its poor use here has on the form and flow of the piece.

From the outset, you're using contractions (eg, "isn't", "we'll", etc.,) but in the very first line you neglect to note a couple of them. "til" is not a word, it is is a contraction of "until" and therefore should be lead by an apostrophe "'til". "Round" is an adjective, but the context you've used it in is actually more of a contraction of "around" meaning that it, too, could benefit from a leading apostrophe: "'round". (Adding an apostrophe to "round" is optional, though, as the word can be used in place of "around", it just feels like it would be more in context if contracted in this piece.)

When I got to the second line, I thought that this piece was throwing off the use of any grammatical marks for pausing/listing because of the absence of any commas, but later on, commas are used correctly. This means that the second line reads like a grammatically incorrect run-on sentence. That second line needs to have commas added. ie:

after wiping His blood off our hands on the white window frames of Heaven and dumping His bones, His bread, and the empty wine bottles in the nearest duckpond, we’ll head into town and get another drink, another drink, another drink and then maybe smoke,
sing some karaoke and start some fights, sleep, fight, sleep

Sometimes in poetry it is nice to not break phrases by lines, but I really feel that this piece would benefit a great deal from a form makeover. The sentences (each one essentially making a stanza of this piece) feel like they run together too many thoughts and without doing anything more than adding line breaks, you could instantly give this piece more appeal.

The punctuation is also a sticking point in the final stanza, and for mine, that is its biggest downfall, not the content itself. Something as simple as requiring more pause from a reader — breaking lines and using commas, colons and em dashes correctly — can add even to the meaning. But if looking at the content to find improvement, I would definitely say that the use of repetition is a hinderance more than a helper here. I think the repetition of ideas is fine, but the repetition of literal words make it seem more like a CD skipping. You use "okay" three times in three lines and even though you're not going for "pretty" in this piece, "okay" is far too ugly to be repeated so often.

A suggested fiddle of the last stanza (assuming that the preceding stanzas come with more conventional presentation too):

waking up on the grass 
— our ghosts rolled up in a carpet soaked in wine and water —
we will proceed anew
i will tell you i like you and i hope that it's okay

you might say no or you might nod and smile
and that’s fine;
it’ll be hard, but it might be beautiful
because it might be beautiful.

It's not a very good rework, feel free to review it with a very low grade, but what I was trying to do was get rid of that repetition of "okay" and make the repetition of "because it might be beautiful" pop a bit more by isolating it.

As I said at the beginning, I enjoyed the tone of this piece and gave it my time because its an alternative concept given to an oft-trodden path. The layout and grammar lets it down in its current iteration, though. The idea is gold, but it needs a lot of buffing to make it shine.

empty cans of motherand old songs that remind you of high schoolon repeat, grey-scale memories replayed over andunder a sky outside so still that even the crowswait with patience, the ...


I enjoyed this piece. With the exception of the modern references in it, it put me in mind of someone writing a letter to a distant friend/relative while observing the overcast world through a window. There is pleasant air of nostalgia — maybe not nostalgia, more, that immediate feeling akin to nostalgia that you get when you're looking at something with the sole purpose of reflection — and a believable sombre twist toward the end.

When reading this after taking in the first impression, a few areas came to mind where I believe some improvements can be made.

In the first stanza of this piece, the places where you have chosen to break the lines had an effect on the free-flowing nature of the verse. With a bit of tweaking, you could eliminate the places where you start a new sentence in the middle of a line. I'm not sure if the shape of the words was really important to you, but the line-breaking seems arbitrary and if fixed it would render a lot of the commas unnecessary. With that said though, the words flow wonderfully together and it paints a vivid image. 

There is just one line in the first stanza that I don't understand and can't put into context with the rest. 

 ... the hues of the morning
hesitant to disrupt their dreaming

That doesn't seem to have a place within the rest of the stanza. The crows wait with patience, and following that line, the clouds part ways as an engine starts, but at what point were the hues of morning disrupting "their" dreaming and who are "they" in this context? Is it the crows? This line really broke the flow, not because of how abstract it is, but because it seems to reference a non-existent subject and it really took me out of the picture for the moments I tried to figure it out.

I also question the use of the em dash after "engine starts". The phrase after the dash seems a little disjointed and out of tense. A suggestion would be to drop the dash and change the tense slightly to something like:

as an engine starts amid a mumble of farewells
and a passenger door

It continues the one thought describing what the clouds are parting over.

I absolutely love the second stanza. The repetition and the full-circle reversal with the repetition is a fantastic lead up to the pivotal final stanza. I only point out that you have no period to finish the second stanza whereas the first and last are closed with a period. Given that the last stanza starts with "except me", you could use an em dash, or even and ellipsis, at the end of the second stanza to make the impact of the turn to sadder thoughts stronger.

The last stanza is a bittersweet image. The last bird stirs and is lonely, but still sings songs of sunlight on its departure. It is a pretty image. If I were to point out anything in the last stanza is that it reads like a very long sentence and the use of "singing" makes it so the whole stanza has to be read quickly as one sentence to make the tense work. If you broke the thought into two, replacing "singing" with "it sings", it would mean that the tense is obvious regardless of how one treats the line breaks.

Overall, I enjoyed this piece, the second stanza especially. The first stanza painted a believable image of surroundings and it did it with abstract metaphor and I find that to be a very effective way into my mind. The points I raise in this are purely subjective for the most part, so you may take them with a grain of salt.

When kisses turn sour.


This is a great piece of poetry. It is bitter where it needs to be, longing when it has to be, and sappy when it wants to be. It all combined into a whole that left me wondering what the narrator actually feels at that moment. It left me wondering what I — if I were being addressed by this poem — need to do to try and level out the seething stack of emotions the narrator is feeling.

The issues I took with this piece — "issue" is a strong word, so coat it in some sugar because these are not serious problems — mainly focus on language rules and the flow of the piece.

There is some really effective internal rhyme and assonance in this piece (eg., "sputtering in the gutter of a mind ..."), but because of its use, it is quite noticeable in its absences from some parts.

The stanza that begins with "when kisses turn sour ..." could definitely benefit from use of stronger rhyme/assonance to bring the stanza up to the speed and flow of those surrounding it. It seems as though "regression" and "dimension" are trying to add some of that assonance, but it doesn't quite have the kick of that really obvious "utter" sound as seen in the first stanza. This could be my Australian accent or a quirk of pronunciation, but I think adding some assonance — more obvious assonance, that is — to that line would set up the run home nicely. After another read, it seems that "regression" may not be the right tense to use either and that may have had an effect on the way I felt when reading it. I'll add suggestion for this stanza that includes the points raised here:

when kisses turn sour and
leave a soul wanting;
not for more but for escape,
regressing into a recessed dimension
called distrust?

Another problem in this stanza — and please bear in mind that I am searching for things to point out, these aren't in any way critical flaws — seems to be the use of the semi-colon. You use it after "wanting" to declare that the next line is a continuation aside, but because of this, it's meant you've had to add a comma. "Regression into a dimension ..." follows that comma and I believe it was an attempt to have a sentence that breaks away a complimentary thought through the use of commas. Something, and this is a guess, like this sentence did. The semi-colon breaks that because it's using two different pieces of punctuation. So to sum up my points about this stanza, I would suggestion something like:

when kisses turn sour and
leave a soul wanting — not for more
for escape
regressing into a recessed dimension
called distrust?

I think you should continue the rhetorical question format into the third stanza too. Presently, you start it with an "and", but I feel this piece would work better if you kept to your defined form and started it at "when" and added a question mark after "rhyme". You could then have "I ask you ..." with a stanza break on either side so that the three stanzas between are like descriptive additions to that first question and if they were removed it would read like "What good is a mouth? I ask you ... what good is a mouth ..."

Finally, you've run into a problem that every poet has hit at some point in their writing career: rhyming with the word "time".  There's so few options — lime, mime, rhyme — that often, whatever is used seems contrived or spliced in solely to get that rhyme. In your case, "reason or rhyme" is walking a fine line at the risk of becoming cliche.

And lastly, (yes, I've already said "finally" but have decided now to add a "lastly" because I didn't want to go back and change "finally" to "penultimately") is there a reason why the only capital letter in this piece is of the first word? That capital W sticks out in my eye.

In summary, I liked this piece, I enjoyed it and I could relate to it. It has an entertaining mix of bitterness and longing and even though it's not breaking revolutionary ground — the whole piece is an analogy for the age old saying "It left a bad taste in my mouth" — it conveys the message well. As I've mentioned quite a few times in this review, there was nothing that broke the piece and the issues are much smaller than the length of this review would suggest. 

I hope my thoughts have helped in some way. Have a great day.

Take me with you.Pack up the stacks of books with which I make my den, wrap up my clothes, take the food from my freezerPlace me with my bones and ...


My first thoughts on reading this piece were "What a great idea," and "I like where this is heading." However — and it seems you share the sentiment — the end is far less enjoyable than the beginning. I highlighted that as the area to focus my review on even before I read your note.

I'll start with a few points about the first part of the poem, and then move on to see if I can help you at all with the run home.

Firstly, I can't stress enough how much I love the concept of this piece as a whole. Until the end, it's never really known what sort of "Moving Day" is being spoken of here. The idea of disassembling a person piece by piece, thought by thought, memory by memory had great appeal to me and I could have applied it to a friend moving away, a lover leaving, or any other form of distance I find entering a formerly close relationship. 

Having said all of that though, I do believe you can tighten up the first three quarters of this. Your punctuation seems haphazard at best. You start by ending the first line with a period, but then we don't see another period until the end of the stanza, even though there is quite a hefty bit of text between the first and last line. As the thoughts of this poem run together so well anyway, I think you can safely drop punctuation from the end of each line — excluding the colon at the pivot and the semi-colons toward the end where you want the reader to pause and reflect.

The second line of this poem stands out like a sore thumb in terms of presentation, and seems a little long in terms of flow too. A couple of suggestions for you:

Pack my den with its stacks of books
Wrap up my clothes
Take the food from my freezer

This first suggestion removes the strange phrasing you had with "with which I make my den..."

Or if the fact that the den is made of books, you could separate "den" and freezer with something like:

Pack up my den of books and wrap my clothes
Take the food from my freezer

Something along these lines would be my suggestion. I believe it will help keep the flow from stuttering on your second line.

The first line of the second stanza also has a similar problem to the second line of the first. It feels more fragmented than the rest of the piece. I think if you look at your piece and see where you've used commas, you'll also see where your flow is getting a little lost. My suggestion for this line would be something like:

Drive away with the box of me resting on the passenger seat

It reinforces that a person has been packed up completely and removes the redundant "your car" which is already implied by "drive away".

Lastly for this first part. "And, when we arrive:" is a good pivot line, but I think the comma is unnecessary. You have the pause already in place because it is the start of a new line and "when we arrive" feels like the start of a whole new sentence that gets cut short by a stanza break. My preference — if I were writing this — would be to have the pivot on its own with a stanza break on either side. That would allow those breaks to stand in place of the colon.

I love the third stanza and don't have anything to say on it really. It is the third stanza where the creativity of this poem's message really came to shine.

Now, the end ... *queue some ominous music*

With the exception of the first line of the fourth stanza, the tail of this poem feels like the tail of a different poem completely. "Make me a part of your surroundings as you have been a part of mine:" fits the rest of the piece nicely — but that colon seems strangely placed.

From that line, it throws around focus too much. My belief is that this poem's narrator is telling the second person subject how they made the second person part of their surroundings, but doing so up front like this is where things seem to drift. I believe this can be addressed by continuing with the first person addressing of the second person. That probably makes no sense, so I'll use an example.

Make me part of your surroundings as you were part of mine;
Hear my laughter in the sound of the rain
Feel my breath in every cigarette

This says the same thing, but keeps the tone, tense and subject the same. You'll see that I removed "Each facet laid out in the stars and the night and the great sailing clouds." Because I simply cannot understand its meaning or its place in this piece. It doesn't feel right off my tongue and it paints images far more celestial than the earthly tone of the rest of the piece. I can't offer a suggestion for that line as I can't make a guess at what you intended with it.

I like the first line of the last stanza, but the remaining two — well, them both together — don't end this poem on the high note I believe there was potential for. Speaking of the small touches that narrator and subject will have together having made each other an intrinsic part of the world, but why is a god shuffling the dictionary around? I think finishing this piece with writer's term is quite a weak end. 

I don't want to offer suggestion for the end because I may have a completely incorrect interpretation of what you wanted me to take away from this piece, but having spent such a great lead up on explaining that the two are linked through earthly means, it seems a waste to end it in stars and abstract word definitions.

If you make the end of this piece a more tactile analogue for being bound together, I believe it will be a lot stronger and will leave a lasting impression on readers.

This is a good poem, and it is a great poem in potential. The start is a wonderful concept and has a message I really enjoyed. If you can fix the end and bring it home strong, I think this will be a poem I can add as a favourite.

It is funny when you think about how weird stuff actually is Like nothing really is, and nothing really isnt. Everything is just energy. It's not really there But it's here  ...


I know this is probably just a literal thought stream — posted into the ether lest the ideas pop out in some awkward moment — but it's come up in my review queue, so I will review it as I've found it.

"Stuff" is such an informal way of addressing the subject of this poem. This piece is using "stuff" as a synonym for life, the universe and everything, and right away, it cheapens the grandeur of the thoughts to come.

You needn't rule out "stuff" entirely, but at least italicise it or clarify your application of it so that it doesn't sound like a teenager's answer to the question "What are you doing tonight?"

As a poet, you have license to make bold claims and notate them as fact for the purposes of a piece, but you have to have a reason for doing so beyond simply claiming something. Or, you have to at least make it make sense within the context of a piece.

In your poem, you simply state "Like nothing really is, and nothing really isnt." and "Everything is just energy." That's it. The rest of the poem doesn't validate or attempt to justify those phrase, the rest of the poem simply repeats the meaning through the use of different words.

You use conjunctions for "it is" in all places except for the first line of the poem when "it's" would be a better choice to start this piece off.

You use "Like" in the context of a sentence padder as in "Like, totally," and "Like, I don't know," and it really makes this feel very informal. 

There's quite a few grammatical errors in the piece too, such as the lack of an apostrophe in "isnt" and the lack of capitalisation of the second line. (Every other line is capitalised in this piece.)

I'm sorry that I can't say much to praise this piece. The idea that there is nothing and everything exists only because we are here to observe it is not new, so it needs a much stronger platform than this to make it work.

If you take this seed of a thought back to the drawing board and expand upon your statements like "Everything is just energy," and "Nothing really is ...," you might be able to turn this into interesting observational philosophy, but it has a long way to go before it gets there.

story from tumblr


Why have you made this into a poem? That is the initial and lingering question I have after reading this very endearing story. Is it so you can disregard common grammatical rules and cloak run-on sentences? Whatever the case, I can only say one thing: This just does not work well in its current format.

The lines are broken for their width rather than their content and having to try and follow a story while constantly scrolling my eyes vertically was a painful enough that I had to copy the text out into an external program so that I could remove the line breaks and read this in the format it really is destined to be: a short story/piece of flash fiction.

This reads like a collection of captions for the storyboard of an animation; the images that tell the main parts of the story are not there. There is continuity but that continuity only barely holds together as large chunks of information is simply omitted. 

There are parts of this I like. Part one is by far the strongest part of this piece. The introduction of Celeste and Norman The Cat and the explanation for their upcoming walk along the seaside. It seems, though, that each part gets progressively weaker and more fidgety with the story; as though the story was coming so fast to you while you were writing it, that you actually couldn't keep up and didn't go back to fill the gaps.

At what stage before Celeste places the sand dollars down is it mentioned that they are heading toward a cave? Why is nobody surprised when Norman The Cat speaks? Where did the cavern's eyes come from; we only got told it had teeth and a voice?

There is something here — an interesting story, characters with potential, a great setting, etc., — but it's buried under so much stuff that I would be surprised if one in ten people could read this all the way through.

I truly believe that if this remains a poem told in this way, it will never work. If this is cleaned up into prose, if the jerkiness of the storytelling is smoothed out, and if some more description added, this will make a great short story for young and young at heart. But it has a long way to go.

I never cry anymore.It's been years.It's not something I set out to stop doing.It just is.Sometimes when I am showering,I pretend the droplets that slide down my cheeksare my tearsand ...


I giggled a little at the tags you have attached to this, and for that, I am truly sorry. It seemed like such a juxtaposition to the poignant content of the poem that I was unable to help myself. 

Reviewing short poems is hard. There really isn't much to this one; it goes right ahead and lives up to its genre of "thought stream". There are some interesting ideas in it, but at the end of the poem, I didn't feel like I had read a poem so much as the narrator had told me a random fact about themselves.

I believe that the reason I came away with that conclusion is that the language used is very prosaic. The first couple of lines were okay and they set up a flowing, pausing tone, but from "It's not something I set out to stop doing ...", it began feel like a micro-thought. Like a miniature snippet of prose broken over many lines. This is further evidenced by the fact some lines are broken in two just because the sentence was getting too long for one line.

A poem such as this really benefits from economy of word usage, and although I enjoy the thoughts within it, I think it would really benefit from stripping as much as you possibly can — all the conjunctions and nothing words joining the dots — from the middle.

Because I am too weak to shed them myself
I pretend droplets are tears when I shower

They slide down my cheeks
I don't move when they are falling
Out of respect for the pain

That's probably not a very good example of reworking the middle section, but the poem would really benefit from making this section thinner and less like a miniature piece of prose.

The bookends on this piece are lovely. The beginning and end are succinct and yet still convey their meanings eloquently. If you can rework the middle section to flow without the superfluous words making it seem a run-on sentence, you'll be onto a winner here.