Welcome to Gaia! ::

Did you wish editing or a critique?

As has been requested, I shall skip the editing phase, so without further ado:

My opinion: The rhyme scheme is not. There is no set pattern, and while the staccato inclusion of rhyme fits the notion of heartbreak, in this case it detracts from the reading by drawing too much attention to itself, rather than more pertinent details.

Diction is consistent throughout - pedestrian words allow for a large audience to appreciate this, and allows for the message to be interpreted more universally. In line with this, while there is no set meter, all of your words are two syllables or less, which also contributes to the mood of simplicity - the most important words (talked, feelings, nothing) are the two-syllabled ones, which makes them stand out just enough to increase their importance without being distracting. In line with this, I would search for an alternate diction to one or two select other words, (I suggest choosing "song" as the only one) to round out this method of highlighting important pieces of the work.

Your use of rhetorical question draws the reader "in", and increases the pathos of the piece, and including the final line as the first line completes the poem as a circle - quite fitting for the subject matter, although the cycle of heartbreak could have been explored a little more deeply (if this is based upon personal experience, you know then how the despair repeats itself, and changes in various ways each time) - In reworking this I suggest investigating this idea more thoroughly, but without losing any of the asperity that makes this piece strong.

The speed of reading leaves much to be desired - your line breaks, in conjunction with the rhyme, slow this piece down, when it would be better served by either an overall faster pace, or by an alternation of slow and quick to accentuate the important details (the two-syllable words). In particular I suggest removing the commas in the middle line of the first and third stanza (the comma on the second line of the second stanza does not slow the reading down to the extent that it is negative, although for consistency, you might consider nixing that one as well). Whether you change the punctuation to an alternate mark, or leave it out altogether is your prerogative.

Your choice of speaking only of "you" and "him" is interesting - it shifts the focus from how "you" affects the narrator to how "him" affects the narrator through "you". While this is not a bad thing, you might consider your program, and evaluate whether this is the focus you would like it to have - envy, resentment, and how those are what instigate heartbreak, rather than the loss of "you". You have further examined this point of view by blaming "you" in the first stanza. This direction that you have chosen says much about the narrator, particularly a dialogue about how "you" the person is not what is important to the narrator, but rather "you" the object, and the narrator's own feelings, in that the narrator blames both "you" and "him", rather than questioning what it was within his or her self that caused the rift between the narrator and "you" to occur. Changing this focus will change the poem into an entirely new poem, and thus, I suggest leaving it as is, as it is currently very well-defined and explored, whether or not you the writer wish to hear it.

I have only one question after reading this, regarding the line "but our song". I posit that you reference here a personal anecdote, but its relevance to the poem's program remains unclear. It is a pivotal point in the poem, as the line that proceeds it "All I hear now is nothing," is the climax on the triangle, meaning that these two lines must be the most lucid in order for the full impact of the message to be felt, which as of this edit, it is not. I suggest maintaining the brevity of the line (it is three words long, as compared to the previous line's six), while making it clear just how the fact that only the song remains is the epitome of your despair.

If you wish a different type of critique (marxist, feminist, allegorical, etc) rather than this formal (standard) critique, please ask (although I do not see why such would be necessary in this case). Please discuss anything about this critique that you do not understand, or notify me if there is something I missed which you would like examined. Hopefully this is what you had in mind.