All Comments on 'Obligate Parasite'

glad you put the quotes in, it helps. Strange stuff. 100

It's strange enough it might be me that just isn't getting it. Then again it might not be. Not sure what to make of it.

it's certainly a poem pregnant with meaning. It's also really biting and well written.

But intoxicating, dripping with the kind of malevolence that the political paranoids on this site think lurks around ever corner. I really liked it. It's tense, densly written and well edit. Getting a recommend.

what i really like about this is the concept of dependence: without the poetry, there'd be no critique/edit - ergo without the poet, the critter/editor wouldn't exist. to an extent there's a co-dependency... we all like getting feedback, knowing we've been read. we'll, perhaps not all of us, but i feel it would be safe to say "the majority"; to be read and critiqued by an editor worth their salt is something valuable to the poet.

i'm still unsure whether this comes from the editorial p.o.v or the poet's; the title suggests this to be a scathing but tongue-in-cheek tilt at maligned editors, and yet i still get that feeling this is a poet familiar with taking on an editorial role.

for all it's ugliness (that title is as disparaging as they come), the use of words such as 'metastasize', 'malignant' and 'despoil', this verbal assault shapeshifts in its final lines to imply a dramatic positive. from the cocoon, the pupa, emerges the glorious butterfly that takes wing.

so - poet or critter? i like to imagine this is addressed to both. of course, i might be completely wrong.