I was wrong writing. Just tell me the firsts in her music were less than the firsts (and the rests) in her life. And that this woman (I hope not still the child a prior titles might suggest) is no longer the girl who put together the title “If you’re poor, find something to sue somebody for …”. Rather than the title “If you breathe, find something to sue somebody for …”.

Tell me she is something better, tell me she presses herself (as I think she does) but recognizes the advantages she was given compared to so many (and still fewer than some). Tell me she doesn’t wine about others not leaving the cafe that provides subsistence, to take that chance, when she has houses to choose from (and if it is only a house, then houses in size perhaps). Tell me when she says that she “was put here to fight Vikings” that it’s not simply “the poor” she’s set to wage war on; if the cruel or mindless reside in the poor let her fight, but I hope she does the same when they reside in money. Tell me she doesn’t mention “Tale of Two Cities” as stands out in most favoring to the wealthy over the poor of all his (that I’ve come across). Tell me she understands the books she mentions, not as advocating selfishness or lack of responsibily for ones’ self through excuse “done for their …”, but rather advocating the self (the acheivement to/of the self). Tell me she isn’t a ruined in pastels.

Tell me this and I won’t fear, fear the child, the ruins in pastels, that I lost a fight worth fighting, that I didn’t want to loose. That it’s no joke when joke: “I’ll only marry to money.” Tell me when I turned mean, that I turned incorrectly. Tell me there’s no darkness, in the robot with t.v. reference (it looks neat, only noting robot and t.v. reference), when light of earlier work considered did reflect a spectrum. Tell me no shoes is not simply pandering to one, nor the food she eats to another, and the desserts posted to the rest. Tell me she’s … something real, whatever that may be; And then tell me she is something impressive too. Tell me she doesn’t hate them for having less than her. Tell me when rightfully disdains when dismissed simply for having more, that she doesn’t simply dismiss the rest simply for having less.

And regardless of what you tell me, I tell you it’s the last I write (written with resolve, which comes easily here, as there’s nothing else to write). And I’ll say I’m arrogant (and not in a good way, as I didn’t press myself sufficiently to make arrogant simply confident), but I did try to fight for something when I fought against Vikings (Twitter and Facebook), and I tried to fight for something when I fought to hold castles at bay (even if it was I that mistakenly fell at the end), even if I mistakenly heard …. “off with their heads”, when it was “If you’re poor, find something to sue somebody for …” I did hear the queen say.


Comments in response (part 1 – already sent)

I’m breaking my comments into two submissions as the first discusses how I misinterpreted your writing. The second discusses my (overgeneralized) view of social conditions through which my misinterpretation occurred. I am sending this separately as I didn’t know if there would be any benefit to providing the second, but didn’t want to single out the specific social media that I did without attempting justification, and was further concerned that it tended toward rant.


My apologies. I misread it. Before your comments, I read it as if it was written by someone who uses specific social media, like facebook or twitter, to gain an audience and is laughing about being worshipped by those that follow them and seeing the destruction the mindlessness causes to the followers (noting the line: “They’ll see the rope I left”), and the persecution of a third party who attempts to warn these followers to think for themselves. Later in the poem I read it as if the person that’s worshipped is describing the persecution and death of the third party by actually switching the first person reference to this third party (if that explaination makes any sense) who was the only one imploring the followers to think for themselves (noting my switching of first person to third party and line “They’ll punish their only ally” and “The axe will drop upon my head”). Late in in the poem, as I had this third party now place in the first person, I read it as the person who is worshipped saying that rather than grieve the person who tried to help them, they now have free reign to subjegate their followers (again noting my reversal of first person and the lines “Although instead of by my grave” and “They will kneel beside their golden calf–”). Note: based on my misinterpretation, what I wrote was more of a response to this person who is worshipped and will subjegate those who are weaker, with emphasis on economic discrepancies. Note: I think I have been misinterpreting a great deal of what I read lately, my appologies.

Comments in response

Further elaboration of view on social conditions through which I misinterpreted the character/writing:

Once a large enough audience is achieved a person can become a “celebrity” that basically becomes worshipped, abhorred, or such by a large number of followers (becoming the golden calf). As the extremes of being worshipped or abhorred suggest (with the focus on the first), people in turn go to the extreme of giving up their own thought processes in return for simply accepting (or rejecting) the thoughts, without critique, that the person they follow/friend posts.

Note: the number of facebook pages and twitter postings I have viewed is probably fairly limited. I focus on twitter simply because I view the character requirements (even if social habits differed) as too limiting for anyone to regularly provide a substantive enough concept for it to be broken down sufficiently and produce intelligent discourse. Also, I viewed the lines “The starving person is overshadowed” through “Is beyond all comprehension” in the context of a person simply asking to be “tweeted back” without any other feedback request, rather than sending those strings of text in discussion of what could probably be called real social issues (though I now wonder if they weren’t meant to address the occurrence of “reality television” and it’s “actors”, especially in light of the prior line “Make reality an illusion”).

With facebook I base it simply on my view that I see the social habits displayed there as generally producing uninformative postings by “fans” on a celebrity’s site which say only that they “love”/”hate” that celebrity (product vs person misidentification). If posting only this is meant to serve to make them known for identifying people with common interests to link to, then a list of names might be sufficient and save typing. So I placed lines “By closing their minds” through “And suffocating what was inside” in the context that they have closed their minds to rational evaluation of the product or person and in turn distorted their emotions rendering them useless (although I assume the latter lines were intended to be read addressing some concept of the soul, artistic or otherwise).