Attack on Bear

On April 15, 2024, I began to hear three voices in my head I had never heard before. This is how I experienced that night and the following day before going to seek help. Part of my Psych Ward Poetry

The earth shook, then stood still

BOOM!

There! Again it’s shaken to its pillars

Again and Again and Again

Explosion after Explosion

Hit after Hit

The bombardment doesn’t stop

In the initial onslaught of War

 

Hors after the first Bombs fell

�" SILENCE �"

Birdsong; an orange glow

Fills the edge of the sky

Was that a Whisper?

What did the Enemy have in mind

For today’s Attack?

 

From the jungle, out of the trees

They lurk in every Shadow

On silent feet they Engage

Their artillery exploding with

No Warning

Then they slip back into the

Darkness. Enemies from the Void

These Demons from Hell

 

In their Attack they show their

Determination

Strategically Organized

Planned to Precision

Thoughts like Machine Gun

Bursts

Pierce the Poet’s Mind

 

The Enemy slides back into Hiding

The Stars again cast down their Light

Illuminating silver rivulets

Cascading like twin Waterfalls

Rolling off the Poet’s cheeks

Before Falling to the ground

The Poet carries on

Fighting the War in their Mind

Reviews

[Coffee Vampier]

You have too many references- they don't make sense. The plot line also doesn't feel cohesive.

[JayG]

In this, everything but your intent made it to the page. So while we see the result of whatever drove you to write it, we have effect without cause.

When you read it, you already have backstory, setting, and, intent before you read the first word. And the voice of the narrator — your voice — is filled with the emotion the reader can't know to place there. So, it works as it should. But, the reader lacks that most critical of necessities, context.

Look at the opening line as the reader must:

• The earth shook, then stood still

As a reader views it, it’s an earthquake, or, a strong emotional moment. But then:

• BOOM!

So first, you present effect, and then cause? How can the message you hoped to deliver be meaningful when the sequence is: confusion, followed by clarification?

But more than that, given that the reader believes it to be an earthquake, the noise is seen as things falling as a result of it. But then:

• There! Again it’s shaken to its pillars

What can the reader say but “huh?” Is it the earth that’s in pillars, or, some unspecified building? Unknown. But then:

• Explosion after Explosion

We just made a sharp left turn and headed I another direction. What we were seemingly told was an earthquake became an explosion of undefined source. Sure, you, who knew, all along, what it was, get exactly the meaning you intended. But our intent doesn’t make it to the page. So the reader gets the meaning suggested by THEIR life-experience, and, punctuation.

See how different what the reader gets is from what you do? That’s one reason we need to write from our own seat, but edit from that of a reader, who lacks any context the words don’t evoke or supply. It’s why effect must come after cause.

When you read this piece, you have backstory, setting, and intent before you read the first word. So for you, the words call up memories, images, and more, all waiting in your mind. But the reader? they lack that most critical of necessities, context. So for the reader, the words call up memories, images, and more, all waiting in *YOUR* mind. But without you there to clarify...

Make sense?

You might want to read Mary Oliver’s, A Poetry Handbook, which I often recommend. It’s truly a gem, and is filled with surprises, like why we sometimes use the word rock and at others, stone, to specify the same thing. I think you’ll find it eye-opening.

Sorry my news wasn’t better. But still, hang in there, and keep on writing. It never gets easier, but with work, we can become confused on a higher level. and that's okay, because writing is a journey, one lasting a lifetime, not a destination.

Jay Greenstein
Articles: https://jaygreenstein.wordpress.com/category/the-craft-of-writing/the-grumpy-old-writing-coach/
Videos: https://www.youtube.com/@jaygreenstein3334

------------
“Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader. Not the fact that it’s raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.”
~ E. L. Doctorow

[Bipolarbear.979]

Thank you for your comment!

The effect I was going for was apparently achieved, actually. It was meant to be confusing. It was how it felt to experience the Voices I had that day, and in the days following when they went from an 'initial bombardment' to a more guerilla-style attack. It began without warning and without cause, and was very, very confusing.

[JayG]

• It was meant to be confusing

Then why not simply place a few random words on the page. Confusion achieved.

My point is that you're making the assumption that the reader will continue, and come to understand the situation. But readers are volunteers, not conscripts. Confuse them for a line and they turn away with nothing more read.

The "boom" that signifies an explosion to you, has no inherent sound for the reader, and could be anything from a bass drum to a volcano coming active, to a door slamming. You know. Everyone there knows. The reader? Not a clue because you've not placed them in time and space. So when you read it the boom is the one you heard. For the reader it's a word, context and source unknown

Work WITH the reader to convey the "What the hell was that?" feeling, without making the reader wondering what YOU mean.

[Bipolarbear.979]

I am sorry you are unable to enjoy my work. Apparently this was not written for you, but others might enjoy.

[JayG]

• I am sorry you are unable to enjoy my work. Apparently this was not written for you, but others might enjoy.

Have they? You have a total of 30 pieces posted, and six have one person who commented. This piece has had 47 views, and no one else was moved to comment. That, in and of itself, should tell you that you’re not communicating your message to the reader in a form that makes it as meaningful as you hoped.

Someone who didn’t have to respond to this, took the time to tell you where, and why, that miscommunication occurred, and did so because YOU invited comment. Your response? To blame it on the reader not "enjoying it."

Had I praised the work you’d have accepted it as your due, without hesitation. How can you not accept what’s not praise, especially given that it’s not a matter of talent or how well you write, only missing professional skills?

Why ask for critique if you’re going to discard it as the one giving the critique not “getting it?” I am most definitely not a poet, but my efforts generate pages of comment. And the read difference between us is that I took the time to look into the skills that the pros take for granted.

A readable copy of that Mary Oliver book I recommended can be downloaded at the site I link to below. Grab a copy and try a few chapters.
https://yes-pdf.com/book/1596

And now, because it wasn't my intent to upset you, or argue, I'll wish you luck with your writing and bow out.