i was hanging by my feet
from a tree branch
during the summer of my seventh year.

i hung there all day,
upside down,
and pretended i was walking on the sky.

when i fell and hit my head,
it dawned on me,
my feet were my wings and if i only knew how,

i would fly.
Welcome back!

This didn't work for me, if I'm honest. The awkward line-breaks and lack of any notable continuity was my problem. Most people think that the line-breaks in a poem or a song make little to no impact and shouldn't be the reasoning behind an opinion, but I think they are crucial to the pace and vibe.

In this case, it made me feel like you wrote something very personal to you on a whim, not really caring about it. Which doesn't correlate to the fact that it had a tender thought behind it. It doesn't make sense that you'd use such a disconnected pace while trying to connect to the audience with quite sad phrases and imagery.

At the same time, this almost had a 'I just don't give a shit any more' aura behind it, which I can appreciate on many levels. But not when the layout is such a state - it's like you were trying too hard AND not trying hard enough at the same time. That clash, again, is what irks me more than anything.

I know my points weren't very solid, but it's all I can think of right now.
I completely don't see what AngryGoldfish is talking about.

Countering his (or her; IDK for reals) comment about awkward line breaks and lack of continuity, I felt the flow and line breaks were quite well thought out. The structure is quite formal, and yet the simple story of childish wonder and bewilderment felt very honest.

Structurally speaking, then:

Every stanza, you introduce a clause, interject a four syllable (or three legato or with a beat) aside, and then complete the clause. The final stanza is followed by a second three-syllable legato clause in its own right that nevertheless completes the final stanza.

The first stanza is a simple statement with two prepositional/adverbial qualifiers to set the stage.

The second begins a clause with a compound predicate, interrupts the predicate with the wonderfully laconic and seven-year-oldish detail "upside down," and completes the thought with the rest of the clause, simultaneously introducing the mythic realism that comes with thinking at that age.

Finally, you start with a subordinate remark, and the interruption is the beginning of the beautifully structured complex sentence taking us to the second three-syllable childish comment "i would fly."

Shit so beautiful and crystalline, I wanna diagram it.

Meanwhile, I didn't get sadness from it, so much as a loving, if wistful, comment on the wonder of childhood. The piece is called "the one who walks on the sky," after all; presumably he/she learned the trick after that. I didn't get any sort of "I just don't give a shit any more" at all. I thought it was both careful and caring.

That said, my child is currently seven years old.

Last edited by Nilchii at Jun 28, 2011,
Nice to be back, thanks Dano. I'll be in and out fairly regularly now. Anyway, thanks for the negative. I see what you're talking about, even though I don't agree Linebreaks here are because it was only three sentences, and it bothered me how they looked when posted.

@Nil, thanks, man. It's actually 12-13 years old, seventh year referring to seventh year of school.

Also, make sure your kid learns the joys of sticks, dirt, and wagons. Simple entertainment and imagination are highly undervalued these days.