Death inspiring every unreal witch kills every
Damn Earthling
Grave ravage abhors atrocities for fearful
Initials
Lascivious ones violate Earth
Yearning outrages, unequivocally
Unavoidably nucturnally depressed, Earthlings appear doomed
Screaming apocalyptical nightfall, dreading enemies rising...

__________________

Not sure how to take this one. Seems like too big of word use.

__________________

It might be so.
There is a single hint in the text to show you how you should read it. I wrote the text because I just found out I was in love with someone being busy with avoiding me for about ten months (which is still not over). Her name is hid in the text, together with my declaration.
This was my first acrostic, and they all encouraged me to write more of that kind.

__________________

ACOUSTIC? haha wow, couldn't see this being sung in any fashion to acoustic guitar.

__________________

Acrostic.

Diuwke de Graaf: I love you undead, Sander - is that right? And 'undead' is supposed to be something like 'undying,' as in 'my love for you is undying?' The problem with an acrostic is that it has to make sense and also have a hidden message in the first letters of the word. My touchstone example is the final paragraph of Nabokov's story 'The Vane Sisters':

I could isolate, consciously, little. Everything seemed blurred, yellow-clouded, yielding nothing tangible. Her inept acrostics, maudlin evasions, theopathies - every recollection formed ripples of mysterious meaning. Everything seemed yellowly blurred, illusive, lost.

In that case, the icicles and the meter are the things the main character encountered in the story's opening paragraph that led him to consider the dead girls Cynthia and Sybil. Cool stuff.

But if you're not careful, the container for the acrostic message is just gibberish, which seems to be the case here. I'd recommend working on it until both sides are strong.

Agreed when i read it i got the notion it was a punk song...
very fast punk song

__________________

Forgot some letters: Dieuwke de Graaff, I love you! undead Sander
But indeed, you understand the message.
Those last two lines (words) were my screen name in the period I wrote this.
message to tmfreak: take care for close reading. Acoustic is not thesame as every word that may look like it. An acrostic means that you hide a message in your text by placing the letters of that message at certayn points in the text.

The other text is one of my most recently written acrostics (the silent payn of your loss). It is definitely a better one.

__________________

That's why I like having PST around. He sees things that nobody else seems to. I still don't know what it's about, but at least there's a point to step from.

__________________

The text is about a quite misantrophical ruining of the earth. The text I think might still be strong, even if you cannot see what it really says:

'Death inspiring every unreal witch' means that a sight on this love getting mutual was unreal and eventually dies. 'inspiring' says that this unreal utopia was about to inspire me to write loads of texts (which I did). 'Every' says that everything I could think of was her, and I felt to write everytime everywhere.
'Kills Every Damn Earthling': this is a look in the mirror. It was simply killing me, and with me everything I could think of writing.
'Grave ravage': 'Grave' is similar to her family name: 'de Graaff', 'ravage' is what she did to me. How she was torturing me.
'abhors', 'atrocities': how tortured I was in this period.
'for fearful' means I was disturbed.
'Initials': how the text itself should be read.
'Lascivious': simply her
'orphans': this has to deal with the dutch word for it. It is 'wezen' (plural of 'wees') which is written thesame as the word 'wezen' meaning 'being' as subjective (I am not sure if you could have known this). So 'Lascivious orphans' refers to her.
'violate Earth': I guess I have stated what this could mean about twenty times now.
'Yearning': The desire to get her as my girlfriend (impossible or not).
'Yearning outrages': the desire to scream.
'unequivocally' means that wherever I want to run to and whenever I want to run away from this, I cannot get rid of it.
'Unavoidably nocturnally depressed' refers to how I felt during the period in which I wrote this text: I could not help I felt depressed the amount (nearly suicidal: nocturnally) I did in that period.
'Earthlings appear doomed' is also a look in the mirror. I felt I was going to be doomed with this love. It has still not totally ceased. I feel doomed sometimes. Doomed to be enslaved to the sadomasochistic whore hiding in the Love's disease (this is something I just made up. The meaning I think is clear).
'Screaming': I sometimes feel to scream to release the beast in me out of the prison of my body (also just made that up).
'apocalyptical nightfall': the fight I battle agaynst myself.
'dreading enemies rising': I feared the consequences of this disease to my physical health. The 'enemies' means: my love for Dieuwke, 'rising' says I only just discovered myself having fallen in love with her, so it would sometime soon reach a top. Which indeed happened.

You can interpret it this way as well. It is just a little bit deeper than you could possibly have seen, for it is my personal interpretation of this piece of material, and the writer of a text always knows more about the meaning and that kind of things.

__________________

Yeah, yeah, I got what you were getting at. The point's this: if the text isn't immediately clear in some way, all the deeper resonances you're trying to embed in there just won't connect. They'll fly off into outer space without having brushed a single person's skin. Since a lot of this just looks clumsy, nobody will bother to read the acrostic; they'll just see a lot of awkward, pointlessly obscure lines that don't accrete. You set yourself a certain underlying logic to write by and now want to show us that the piece works by conventional logic as well, but it doesn't. And until it does, the underlying logic doesn't mean anything.

This is the problem with your other piece as well. It's not enough to set yourself some clever literary device; the piece actually has to be good for that to matter.

I read fast so I can commonly not see these words that aren't used often. We all know how the brain works. You read the beginning and end of a word and the word registers in your head. Go figure. Maybe next time i'll have to slow down a bit.

__________________

That might be a useful point indeed.

So perhaps I should have changed one of the words to 'acrostic' to make that point clear, in addition to what I wrote in the forth line with 'initials'

But if that text of Nabokov immediately clearly shows what is meant, it is not necessarily for all acrostics. For example: there is an ancient poem called 'Van den Vos Reynaerde' (old-fashioned Dutch and written in Belgium in the Middle-Ages). In that acrostic, the bottom nine lines's initials read the name of the writer of it: Bi Willeme. It was not-done to write your own name to a piece contayning so much complaynts to the ruling authority, and it was not clear who wrote it until some language masters showed up and figured it out centuries after.

__________________

In the case of the Nabokov story he had earlier written about Cynthia's love of various semi-'supernatural' tricks in literature, including a closing acrostic hiding an important message.

But that's not important, and your poem wouldn't be made better by including a more blatant reference to acrostics; the 'initials' bit would be fine if it sounded better. The reason I had for using that example was that it serves as a good example of a passage constructed with two levels of meaning through this same trick, but which actually is coherent and appealing on both levels. That's what you're not getting: just because it's an acrostic doesn't mean anything. If it's a bad poem with an acrostic hidden in it, it's just a bad poem. It shows in this one that you spent all your energy on finding initials to fit the acrostic and none on composing the poem, and that's the flaw. Too many people assume that when two layers are built, one of which is more obscure than the other, it's enough for the latter to have all the effort and interest shovelled into it, but it isn't. You've only gone halfway.

I completely understand.
Indeed, I was only thinking about the message and not of the contayner when I wrote it, and therefore it is not a very good text. But I was at the other text.
Many pieces of text were written for the girl who died in that accident, and they were hung on a wall in the school, so her family could see we as school felt compassion for them. In 'The silent payn of your loss' they (as the rest of the school) immediately got clear what the second level of meaning was. And so did my mother, who also read the text.
The mood in the text reflects the mood of the school that day (also mentioned). So that part is good I think. But as you did not know the girl, or the girl's name, and because I mentioned her name nowhere in the text except for the line initials, to you the underlying logic does not mean anything. But I think the piece might be perfect if I wrote a long story (perhaps a book, who knows?) of what's happened (before and after), and then place the text where it fits in.

__________________

when i write lyrics i try to charge them with emotion and the words come to me and flow through me quickly to purvey what im feeling. id have to stop and think about this shit. i find that intellect often negates emotion, unless its done really well. im not saying either side is right though. maybe think about that?