|Reviews for I, Koloss|
| TheSilencedOne chapter 1 . 5/21/2015
That Meshuggah reference made my day, I love it!
| metamodernmarx chapter 1 . 3/16/2015
To be honest, I found this poem a little disorienting. Justifying this stand are the seeming lack of direction in your numerous lines of enjambment, and the very denotative nature of the entire piece. When looked at from the macro scale, I am able to discern the omnipotence of this 'infallible deity' named 'Koloss', which you took to a greater height with the 'I' in front.
In spite of the cliched form and simplicity your poem takes and exudes respectively, I would give you credit for your numerous attempts to show contrast through various contradictory juxtapositions. For example, your diction is rich in description and word-pairs such as 'give-take', 'destroy-make', and other comparisons such as 'mountains' with 'earth' - from which an interpretation on the transcendental nature of this being may arise. The tone, however, remains painfully straightforward - this piece is of a violent and brutal nature, too simplistic to be termed phantasmagoric, yet too powerful and strong for a mere 'harsh', and overall from tone and diction - language in general - I can discern (albeit barely, sorry!) an interpretation of this work, that of the omnipotent nature of the being Koloss. From your summary I can, too, extract this unreal and dreamlike form this entity takes on. Hence it could be possible that your poem is about the transcendental and intrinsic nature of the human condition.
Now onto imagery. The being is depicted 'killing' the 'sky', and 'breaking' the clouds. But here you do not use the continuous form, but rather, assign absolute terms which further illustrate the all-encompassing power of the aforementioned being. What follows is a statement - 'titanic king evoked' - that has little context. I - the titanic king evoked? It is rather ambiguous here, and I feel that your choice of using large words, or rather, mixing them, serves only to destroy the intricate meaning of the poem. The being (Koloss) is next hailed the 'immense construction of nature'. I would see this as the spread of humankind and its ideals - something stemming from and has its origins in nature, yet immense in size, suggesting an artificial quality to it. Koloss is 'destroyer and maker', or alternatively 'birth and death'. Of what? I have searched up this being, and my guess is that your representation of it is inspired (in totality or at least partially) by a similar 'Koloss' in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy. Such a being is reported to 'collect and reuse the spikes from (a) dead (Koloss)' - as I am not a follower of this fantasy series, I can only base my interpretation on so scant an evidence. But from this I can infer that the 'Koloss' you are referring to represents the immortal and omnipresent part of human nature that codes for self-interest and egoism, hence an ironic constituent in humankind's overall characteristics, that of intrinsic elements (whereas this, a pragmatic nature that arises from selfishness). It is also interesting to note that 'Koloss' is similar in sound to 'colossus', your ending word. Koloss in this context really is colossus.
Continuing imagery - you, the poet, state that this being dominates a 'kingdom', the 'kingdom of (his) shadow' to be more exact. The image of the shadow perhaps serves to showcase the dark and hidden nature of this being, precisely how egoism within human nature is hidden or at least covered by the scents and façades of human exteriors. 'You' shall pray - who is this 'you'? Man himself, within his self-created sphere of the ugliness of humanness? Koloss is a 'deity' 'infallible', and your description of him (or 'it') as 'terrifying and monstrous' may come across redundant and a somewhat failed attempt at emphasis. The second last line describes this entity as 'pain' and 'exile'; these traits and conditions (respectively) are personified. This could be consequence for anyone who does not obey the 'Koloss', that is, anyone who does not conform to the egoistic preconditions required for one to live without 'pain' and potentially 'exile'. Again, this is my own reading of your piece. The 'rules' of Koloss are definitely important, as stated by the absolute 'all'. Your last line begs one to 'call (it/him/her) what (it/he/she) (is)', before ending with the four words of great magnitude 'I am the colossus'. It is interesting to note that the identity and power of Koloss is evoked most powerfully at the last line. 'Do *action*, but no matter what, *condition* stands' sums it up nicely.
Lastly, I shall move into form. This is the part which I am most critical about. Your poem constitutes of eight lines, with a rhyme scheme 'abababab', yet not in a specific rhythmic form. This I find, frankly, quite disconcerting, as your attempt at verse is shattered by the messy and protruding lines. There is also enjambment for every single line, something I too find excessive. What is the point of your rhyming if your poem overall remains messily liquified? Your language is also rather disorienting, and not even close to the 'stream-of-consciousness' level; it seems as if you are exalting this magnificent being 'Koloss' with unrhetorical and improper statements which have neither been refined nor weaved together in a clean and intricate design. The multiple caesurae in almost every line only serves to hinder your progress in overwhelming the reader in an awesome sense; he is left overwhelmed and tired out. The ending, too, lacks a full stop, and I personally cannot find any meaning to such an action. To justify this as the continuity of the existence of Koloss, or, the ugliness of the human condition, would be to invent a solution for a problem which has no relation to it.
In conclusion, my take on this poem is that you seek to showcase and emphasize the unchanging nature of the human condition, or to be more specific, its ugly attributes which centre mainly around the egoistic quality of Man. While your poem is filled with imagery, this imagery remains rather coarse and without actual form and meaning. The overall structure is destructively disorienting, and I would think that you would be able to present your ideas much better with a refinement (that includes *major* addition and subtraction of parts) of this poem.