Too long/not interesting enough. You'll notice that most tolerable long poetry has a narrative or something to hold one's interesting. Make it very good very quick and keep it good if you want me to keep reading. Good luck.

WHAT

ha ha ha

This is funny. But your xenophobia and homophobia isn't.

I don't think the last line works, unfortunately. Would have been a good haiku otherwise. Ho hum, such is life..... 4.

Memories like silverfish - very good. In fact I like all of the sea imagery here, it invokes a feeling of inevitable flux.

Strange - this doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever. Would indeed be better for the loss of the last line. 3.

I think it works much better as a single poem. People out there should also realise politics is a valid poetic subject.

Teasing, this. I like 'night'/'light out'.

This amuses me because the word pants, on this side of the atlantic, is inherently amusing.

Great opening three stanzas - this poem gives up its meaning after a few reads. It's not immediate, but it draws you in.

This is everything a haiku should avoid - dull, uninspiring, provoking no thought whatsoever - and on a dead horse of a subject which people obviously never tire of flogging. Have a 0 for this weak effort.

I thought I already voted/commented on this garbage.

Clever, but not clever enough. Amusing but potentially hilarious. Work on it!!!111

I thought you made tons of porn movies and died??? But you really went underground to practice your poetry??

The images are good. Perhaps you should compare it to my recent poem "The Story of Randal Pants-Jones". I almost feel guilty about now that I enjoyed some of your work.

This is one of the best poems I've read on Poemranker. Hilarious, well executed, tragic...hilarious. Good Show.

LOOK AT ME I'M LIKE A FUCKING CYBER-TOLKEIN

What are you asking when you say "Would we appreciate it if it weren't?"? Is your counterfactual de re or de dicto? Is "life" a rigid designator; i.e. does it designate the same thing in every possible world or not? Consider "It's possible that the president isn't George Bush". Taken de dicto, i.e. by looking through all possible worlds and examining whoever happens to be the president in each world, the sentence is clearly true, since there are possible worlds in which Al Gore is president. But taken de re, i.e. by evaluating X in each world, where X is the counterpart of the president-in-this-world, i.e. the counterpart of George Bush, it's false, since X is in every case George Bush, and it's false in every possible world that George Bush isn't George Bush. (Of course, there are worlds in which George Bush has no counterpart). I don't really know whether "life" rigidly designates or not. On the one hand, it seems absurd to say that it doesn't, because it's not as if something can just "happen" to be life like someone can just happen to be President. On the other hand, if we say it is a rigid designator, it seems hard to say _how_. Names are rigid designators; so typically are indexicals. But "life" is neither a name nor an indexical. It seems more likely that "life" is a 'shortcut' for a definite description, which would typically mean it isn't a rigid designator. What do you think?

i know the feeling....