This is an excellent poem and one that is all too true.  If only we could all remember that this is neither mine or yours, but HIS, that he shares with us.

Some constructive criticism. (If only it were this easy to gain Karma in real life, right?) I understood your calling us the guests of God, but it isn't established in the beginning as clearly. Maybe "For none other than you and I, God's guests" could be more clearly stated with For you and I are but God's Guests or something. 

The last line of the first stanza "He'll grants our desires" the s can be taken out of grants. Maybe To not kill could be Not to kill, but to embrace . . .

The third stanza may be better stated rather than questioned.

Okay, that's all I good. Once again, I commend you. It's a fabulous poem.

Hi Shiloh, I've just finished your poem, and I have some thoughts to share with you.

Firstly, there's a good number (for a poem) of grammatical problems, which I'll cover below.  While prose can usually get away with the occasional grammar slip or typo, I think poetry is a much less forgiving medium--a poet, after all, writes very few words; presumably, they'll read and reread those few words, tweaking and adjusting, until the poem is just right.  Since a poem is so dependent on beat and rhythm, even a single grammatical slip can cause a carefully constructed piece to come tumbling down.  I would suggest, at the very least, running a poem through Word's grammar check (sometimes it helps to remove the line breaks so Word doesn't choke on those) and then reading it aloud, exaggerating the punctuation, so that you can catch the errors with your voice.  Of course mistakes will still happen, but at least that way you can keep them to a minimum.

Thematically, I think your poem is very strong.  The way you link the stanzas by ending them with "season" is good.  It poses some interesting questions and leaves the answers to the reader, which is also good.  I think the poem as a whole might be improved by focusing on a meter.  As I was scanning it, there didn't seem to be any particular metrical scheme that you were going for.  While that in itself isn't a bad thing, I think poems are greatly enhanced when the poet gives an eye to the beat in the stanzas.  Some lines I saw could have been changed to fit a meter just by swapping a few words.  For example, these lines:

As guests, our major charge is to love each other, To not kill, but to embrace the fullness of all life.

Here, you start off with a nice iambic rhythm.  But all of a sudden we've got an anapest breaking the rhythm ("is to love")--and then we're back to an iamb in "each oth-", with the line ending a bit lamely on the unstressed "-er".  It's as if the "-er" is a wayward syllable, without a foot to attach to.

The next line starts with a bacchius, which is rare in general, but very rare in the context of this poem (it's the first and last one in the entire poem), then a pyrrhus, then an iamb; the line ends in either a spondee or another orphan syllable, depending on your interpretation; either one leaves the line unsastisfied.  As you can see, the meter for just these two lines is all over the map, without a clearly discernable guiding hand.  If we were to just rearrange a few words, say to something like this:

"As guests, our charge is to love each other--

Not to kill, but to embrace the fullness of life."

Consider this change.  Here, the first line is shortened, emphasizing the anapest in "is to love".  The line still ends in an unstressed orphan syllable, "-er," but the dash connects it to the second line, where the stressed "Not" takes over to complete the foot, forming an iamb between the two lines and preserving the rhythm.  "to kill" is now its own iamb, introducing the quartus of "but to embrace" (I would like to somehow cut a syllable out of that to make it an anapest, but it's difficult in the context).  "the" gives a short lull, then the dactyl in "fullness of" very nicely mirrors the previous quartus.  The line ends in a stress, and though it's orphaned, it fits with the quiet of the two unstressed syllables before it.

Of course, it's all up for interpretation, but that's just a suggestion as to how you could rearrange/cut some words to really focus on the meter.

I'd also suggest going through the poem and cutting some of the unnecessary words, like I did in the example above.  Poetry, in my opinion, is all about finding the right word for the right idea; why use two words when one can paint just as beautiful an image?  By using fewer words, you describe less, and leave more to the reader's imagination, which in the end is where all the magic happens anyway.  For example, cutting a few words from the last stanza results in:

We can still get it right, if we stop to remember
That this planet is God's; we're His guests.
We weren't invited to destroy,
But to share equally in His abundance--for a season.

I also included some grammar changes in that rewrite which are suggested below.  Whether that's better or not is up to you, but at least consider how you can still convey the same message but with far fewer words to weigh the stanza down.  The trick is picking the right ones!

On to the grammar points:

In this beautiful world, every thing is possible, For none other than you and I, God's guests. We enjoy the abundance He gives so freely; He'll grants our desires, but only for a season.

"every thing" should be one word.  No comma after "possible."  "You and I" should be "You and me" (it's a common misconception that "You and I" is always the correct form, but that's not always true.  To decide whether to use "you and I" or "you and me," just remove the "you and."  In your case, doing so would result in: "everything is possible for none other than I, God's guest," which is clearly ungrammatical).  "Grants" should be "grant."

As guests, our major charge is to love each other, To not kill, but to embrace the fullness of all life. He said look to Him for all our needs and wants, He'll open heaven's windows, but only in our season.

Change the comma after "wants" to a semicolon or full stop; as it is now, you have a comma splice.  Some think that comma splices are OK for poetry, but I remember one quote (I can't remember who said it) that summed it up for me: "Some folks think comma splices are OK, but the truth is, they're only OK if you're famous."

In greed, have we taken more than our guest's share, Robbing the world and the earth of their great beauty? Have we stored up riches that were never ours to claim , As we watched our neighbor struggle through his season?

I'm a little conflicted on the use of "their" in "their great beauty."  On one hand, if you're referring to the world and the earth as the same thing (i.e. world and capital Earth), then "their" should be the singular "its"; however, if you're referring to the world and the earth as in dirt, then "their" is OK.  I have a suspicion, however, that you really mean capital Earth, because that's immediately what I thought of when I was reading it.

But are standing before Him delineating our deeds?

Here "delineating" is technically correct, in the sense that one would be outlining one's deeds; however, the word "delineate" carries a connotation of physically drawing or sketching.  While it's fine as it is, you might consider picking a different word to emphasize the oral nature of the discussion between the person and God.  Unless, that is, you really do picture them drawing pictures of what they've done

We can still get it right, if we stop and remember, This planet is God's creation; we're His chosen guests. We weren't invited to destroy His majestic wonderland, But to share equally His abundance, but only for a season.

The comma after remember is another comma splice.  You need to replace it with "that".  Also, the last sentence is conjoined with two "buts," which is pretty shaky if not outright incorrect.  Change the comma after "abundance" to a dash or a full stop.  If you choose to make it a full stop, you'll have to flesh "but only for a season" into a full sentence, because otherwise it's a fragment.

Overall, a good submission.  I think if you gave it another revision, cleared up the grammatical issues, and perhaps focused on the meter, this could go from a good poem to an outstanding poem. 

On a note unrelated to this poem, I would suggest that you not include the line "all rights reserved" in your poetry or prose.  I understand the concern for protecting your work from infringement, but the reality is that the chances of someone passing off a person's writing as theirs and somehow taking advantage of that are staggeringly low.  That's why nobody worries that by sending a manuscript to a publisher, the publisher will steal their work and publish it without consent.  It just doesn't happen.  And if someone DID want to rip of a writer's writing, there's almost nothing that writer can do to discover the infringement and stop it.  The internet's a big place, after all, and your eyes can't be everywhere, and your pockets might not be deep enough for legal action.

With that in mind, whenever I see a writer put "all rights reserved" at the end of their work, it instantly smacks of presumption, as if the writer thinks their work is so great that someone will be inclined to steal it.  Whether or not the writing is that good isn't the issue; it's just the presumtuousness, and frankly unprofessionalism, of "all rights reserved" that instantly colors that writer's work in my eyes.  Again, this isn't related to your writing specifically--it's a general opinion I have, and just a suggestion.

Either way, keep up the great writing!

 I personally feel as though this is an excellent poem. The rythm is written in a steady flow that makes the reading easy.

I agree with Bob Onnie on the "All Rights Reserved" thing. With posting this online, yes anyone can steal it. But that is why you should take precautions. Send it to yourself in the mail before posting, and don't open it. The mail center stamp proves that it is yours and you had it first. But with adding that at the end, it is almost like someone is saying, "My work is amazing, people are going to want to steal this." But I'm sure that's not how you intended.

Also, I see that this is entered in to the July Contest. Unfortunately I must say that this is not fit the contest... I guess you gould say.. rules. You see, the poem is supposed to be about questions. Not quests... So unfortunately, I don't think you'll win because it's just not the right subject.

But as stated before, this is an excellent piece of work! You've got talent, a gift, true ability!! Keep it up!

In response to Nikki's comment on copyright: mailing it to yourself is not an effective way to establish copyright.   See: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp

For other common copyright misconceptions (including the "All Rights Reserved" question) see http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Also, I think it's a great entry for the contest--it poses some interesting questions on the nature of the relationship between man and God.

 Simply beautiful! Thank you for this!

XOxo~Drea

Shilohx7,

I don't read poetry as much as I listen to it so most of my comments will stem from what I noticed while reading your poem out loud.

GUEST FOR A SEASON

Your title has guest singular while in the poem plural...is this your intention? I ask this, because it sets a tone of perspective...me versus we. I have different views on a personal level than in a group setting. When I read singular in the title I'm ready to put myself in as a "guest". Yet when I begin reading I have to make a bold shift into the collective which takes away my identity from the first stanza. If this is your intention, you did a great job. If not, I suggest deciding which perspective you want this poem presenting.

In this beautiful world, everything is possible,
For none other than you and me, God's guests.
We enjoy the abundance He gives so freely,
He'll grant our desires, but only for a season.

I feel a period would be great after "possible." It's such an optimistic line that says volumes about the benefits of being God's guest. It should linger on your tongue all by itself.

"None other" is unnatural to say. I stammer over it in speech so naturally I do so when I read it. Another reason, the next line is redundant since you inferred that conception with the word "world". As I said earlier by using "world" I am already thinking "others" outside of me.This will give you a line to further describe "God's guest" with another concept such as our desire compared to God's desire which you bring up in the fourth line.

Take a look at this sentence written in prose form:

We enjoy the abundance He gives so freely, he'll grant our desires, but only for a season.

This sentence is a run-on sentence. May I suggest using a free modifier where you can comment on "He" with some clarity without naming the subject repetitively.

We enjoy the abundance He gives so freely, granting our desires, [i.e. He grants our desires] but only for a season.

Here's another question. Which is God's first desire (commandment)? In your next stanza you have turned around God's priority in commandments.

As guests, our major charge is to love each other,
Not kill, but to embrace the fullness of all life.
He said look to Him for all our needs and wants;
He'll open heaven's windows, but only in our season.

May I suggest...

Looking to Him for all our needs and wants,

We obey his major charge. Loving each other,

Not killing, and embracing the fullness of all life,

We watch him open heaven's windows,

But only in our season.

 

I hope you don't feel that I have been too brutal. I wish to see your poem published since it's theme is one we should see more often. I often wonder what I put down in writing may not be what my reader is interpreting. So many of my suggestions may seem critical, however I am simply giving examples of what I need to read to understand what you may conveying.

But the final judge is you since these are your words not mine. I'm excited for you and I definitely enjoyed your concept, enough to write along with you.

Louisa Gholson

Dossie,

It is with a full plate of respect that I offer this critique. I hope it does not sour your stomach.

That said, I think this piece is better off as something other than a poem. The conversational tone and didactic/instructive manner seems out of place, as in essence, there is no real imagery, and no substantive emotion.

I have only one question and I don't mean to prickle here, but if He gives freely with no anticipation, then why write a poem judging others for their behavior? It seems to not honor His grace, but rather channel it as a tool for judgment - one that makes me a little sad. Sorry.

Serenity and grace come with distinct sensations - use them. I'm not usually a fan of this kind of work, but I can see through this one to the real beauty within. If you can let go of a little judgment here and honor Him and His Gift, then the wellspring of emotion will open and this will become the poem it is capable of being.

Warmest Regards,

B

Hi Shilohx7,

Well, I hope you can take my rejection as well as the applause you have already received. Remember, though, you and I both know that the author has the last say

–if not the last laugh.

I commend you on what you espouse in your poem. I feel though, with the sort of exposé you have written, that perhaps it might be better off as an essay. 

Unlike Bob and Louisa I will not go to great lengths to pick at each line, etc. because I just feel the whole work is too trite as a poem.

As far as Copyright © goes, they have made it easier; you can register a group of writings together and you can do it electronically: http://www.copyright.gov/register/

 ~Kirsten

 N.B. This critique is coming from someone who has difficulty seeing himself as one of "God's guests," but that is extraneous to the critique. 

I think that I understand theme, that we are unjust stewards of God's creation.  This theme is definitely biblical in scope.  I felt like I was receiving a slap on the wrist while reading this, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.   The main problem I have is with the style.  The first four stanzas painted a picture of a problem as old as history, while the fifth stanza provided an overly simplistic answer to it.  The answer was also as ephemeral as the poem's statement that we enjoy the world "only for a season."  No offense, but it sounded somewhat like a hallmark card by the end.  Even though the poem seems to be calling down God's judgement in the first four stanzas, I am still left with the vestiges of "warm fuzzies" after the fifth stanza.