Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Cultinvator Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) It twists and turns in an interesting way, the voice changes from line to line consistently between the exclusive monotheistic claim and that which accepts diversity of thought and religion. (reply to this comment)

from Cultinvator Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) It twists and turns in an interesting way, the voice changes from line to line consistently between the exclusive monotheistic claim and that which accepts diversity of thought and religion. (reply to this comment)

from Cultinvator Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 15:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I like it, its consistent in its style. I like the part where you deal with how creativity is subtlely shun. Just a suggestion, try breaking away from the 15th centurly english. Not that it's wrong... I get into shakespearean genre all the time, but I think todays contemporary language is even more powerful for today's generation. Just a suggestion. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, January 12, 2004, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I like it too, but I think the problem isn't the eccentric vocabulary, but the fact that it strays from its structure (rhythm/rhyme scheme) every few lines. If it had no structure at all, that I could live with, but as it stands it can be kind of jarring. Remember, rhythm is more important than rhyme. Most of Shakespeare's stuff didn't rhyme, but he always stayed with iambic pentameter.(reply to this comment)