_{Heh. Before you begin reading, I want to apologize. I started responding when this was first posted, and upon just refreshing, I see that a few things had been changed (the title, a couple lines I mentioned below - actually all the lines I mention are outdated). I think I'll just post and face the wrath of a Poet's edits ignored.}

This is a great piece - full of images, sharp and concrete, and full of message and meaning. It's hard and sharp, like a broken bone. You asked for some critique, so let me see if I can offer some thoughts (here's me pretending I know something about poetry):

The shift in tenses - was that deliberate? I had some trouble with it in the second stanza. The first stanza is present tense, the second stanza is past with a bit of future, and the third is past again. Perhaps it could all be present, with a bit of future, or all past (excluding the dialogue) without taking away from the meaning?

In a few places, I wanted to prune down the words a little and the repetition to tighten it up. Possible example and alternative:

They break me down, they tear right through
like children through sandcastles.

to

They break me down, they tear
like children right through sandcastles.

Finally, the ending - I wonder if there's a way to make it pack more punch. I'm liking what you did with the period and then fragment, but perhaps that same effect could be achieved with one more linebreak and without the period?

Ex:

They saw them globular like eggs
and took, cuckoos, to raise as their own,

wishing their young were as green as your eyes.

On that note, maybe "our eyes" would be more effective? The introduction of the "you" is a tad uncertain, and if it were "our" eyes, then perhaps "green" would have the double meaning of youth, innocence, naivety, even that sense of being easily tricked? Because with a 'you' it seems like a direct reference to a specific individual which would be known only to you, the writer.

I could be completely off-base here, though. :]

I should probably stop rambling, but before I do, can I just say that I absolutely loved the strong continuation of the bird imagery throughout the poem and the sharp focus on beach imagery. That sense of brine and decay was strong and more than effective.

The poem was a pleasure to read. Thank you for that.

Thankyou so much for your long and thorough comment. Honestly, most of the time even when I select the advanced critique option all I get is "nice poem " if anything at all, so this was lovely to see!

It's also quite encouraging that most of the parts you thought should be altered I already decided to. My creative writing tutor is always hammering in the "rewriting is more difficult and just as important as writing" ethic, so it's nice to see my editing skills are going somewhere. If you have time, I was wondering what are your opinions on the changes I made to the "They break me down, tearing through
like children into sandcastles." and the final line? As far as the last line goes I do see your point about changing the "your" to "our" but really I wanted to end the poem on the note that it was addressed to someone else.

As far as the tenses go, I think although they seem quite random there is some coherency to it? Most of this is about a day out at St. Pauls Cathedral, the first verse is present tense because it is talking about the way we are, the elements of past tense are about that day and how it was and the future tense is...I think you get the picture?

Thankyou so much again, it was lovely to read your comment x

--
"Here's looking at you kid"

Visit my prose account:
~frankieofthehills

Oh yes, I know how you mean it - most people take 'adv crit' to mean 'tell me the poem's perfect and you wouldn't change a thing.' It's a pleasure to get a pleasant reply to a critique.

For the last line, I'm not sure if I'm liking the sound the change creates and the indirectness of the simile comparison. There are three directions there, so to speak, each contradicting each other:

"They break me 1) down, tearing 2) through
like children 3) into sandcastles."

I imagine 1 and 2 would work, or 1 and 3, but not all three. Not for me, at least. I kinda like my version better (but I would, wouldn't I? ;] )

I think this new and revised ending is a much much stronger one in honing down the point. I like it more than the two earlier ones I've seen, though I completely understand your reluctance to depersonalize the poem for the sake of the reader.

If I had to pin down the reason why I had trouble with the tense shifts, I'd blame it on the beginning of Stanza 2. Look:

They shut us underground, grave girls.
We were interred, the soil filled our ears;

"They shut us underground" can be read almost like present tense as a form of "they are shutting us underground" or "they close us underground" after the last stanza present tense. Then line 2 of stanza 2 makes it clear that the first line is supposed to be past and that yanks me back and makes me mentally revise my initial impression. Mind, this could just be my brain being weird.

When I first commented, I almost mentioned the title, and then decided to avoid expressing my confusion. I had no idea why the title was Saint Paul['s crypt], but I wrote it off as being religious knowledge that I would know if I knew anything about Christianity. But after reading your comment, the Saint Paul is a personal reference to an event? Rather than a context setter for the reader?

So yes, a few thoughts. Revising is hard; kudos for being the brave-soul and doing it. Thank you for the lovely reply and the delicious read. :]

I'm sorry, I have nothing constructive to offer. I see only beauty here.

ohhh gosh thankyou so much

--
"Here's looking at you kid"

Visit my prose account:
~frankieofthehills

As promised:

This was a very enjoyable read. I have just a few suggestions (unless there is a parenthetical reference, the bolded are suggestions for removal):

We are female, we are flammable.
Feathered cologne reeks of skies and miles (In keeping with the punctuation of the piece, you need to end-stop here.)
It makes us retch, us bones;
Us skeleton girls with smoking bones.(I personally don't feel the repetition of smoking bones works here and would suggest the following:

It makes us retch, us bones;
Us smoking skeletal girls.)

I do not care for the birds-
the jackdaw and the wren.
They shut us underground, grave girls.
We were interred, the soil fill[ing]ed our ears;
our cotton, our stuffing.
We heard the earth worms whisper-
"These skeleton trees don't belong here,
they will soar past things that are built
they will grow spiny, dry and yellow
sick sick to the sky.
They will only care for the height." (impactful and unique imagery)

We were buried amongst scholars and kings,
Us poets, we Queens, below the birds.
I do not care for their creations;
They are the reason we have no flesh-
picking our eyes, fresh and fine,
the best of the crop, our drooping eyes.

They saw them globular like eggs
and took, cuckoos, (is there a particular reason you chose this word?) to raise as their own.

They wish their young were as green.

Nice, solid ending. Overall the read was engaging as well as intriguing.

--
No need to thank me for "Faves" or Watches; however, if you feel the need, please do so in my Shoutbox.

Thank you.

This is really well written and constructed. It offers vivid imagery. Nothing to add here except great stuff!!

--
"Don't forget that I cannot see myself. My role is limited to being the one who looks in the mirror." - French poet Jacques Rigaut

Hmmm I personally think this would be better suited for Horror and Macabre or Experimental - Surrealism, but other than that I like the complexity.

--
~I am a writer~

thankyou so much

--
Visit my prose account:
~frankieofthehills

This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper