/lit/ - Literature

>>7058683
cardinalis

After a few naps I'm glad the thread didn't die while I was asleep

>>7001694
I like your diction in that it doesn't feel forced, ie as if you were painstakingly searching for a word to fit.
That being said, there isn't anything that makes me want to return to the piece. What it has going for it is that it's not overtly pretentious. My issue with it is that it's couched in symbolism, and other than the act of trying to figure out what you want to tell me there's nothing that makes me want to read it again. It's prosaic almost in structure and device, and by that I mean if I were to find this text in a book of prose without the few line breaks there's nothing that indicates "this is poetry" to me other than the use of symbols, which in itself and isolated isn't inherently poetic.
I guess what I'd advise is practice the use of poetic devices, try to accomplish what you're trying to do through the use of other things outside of strictly symbols. I'm not saying to use anaphora or apostrophe or what have you just for the sake of using them, but try to consider all of your options. Poets have a lot of tools that writers of prose don't necessarily get to take advantage of.
Just practice more lad, I don't think your piece was bad.

>>7001717
I'm assuming if it was in one of the memebooks it has some sort of other context to it?
Almost reminds me of some of Joyce's prose in its diction. It's not bad, pleasant to read almost; if I had to say something about it is that I wish it was more rhythmic. When I read this I /want/ a rhythm there to "mesmerize" me into it. I think it'd benefit from some sort of assonance, consonance, metre, or something to give it more flow, as it does remind me of Joyce in a way and the thing that draws a lot of readers into him is his hypnotic rhythm. Otherwise not bad, just keep practicing.
One specific thing I wanted to mention,
>Post-industrial
This term took me out of it. It feels very out of place considering the diction up to that point is natural/incites nature. It's too human a term and feels clunked in there. If that's the intended effect ignore this, obviously.