I think that the first three stanza's could use some punctuation, as well as re-thinking your line breaks. If you're not folowing a specific meter or rhyme scheme, devising your own rhythm is very important. The lack of finite meaning makes this dificult reading. It comes out when its read aloud, as several different rhythms and schemes that don't lead to a solid package. They, him, left undefined, come across as juvenile, rather than as a strong image of a person or being. That said, there is alot of repetition in the themes, nothing original displayed. You might consider a strong revision and re-post on this piece.
I quite like it, a bit abstract and everyone can give it their own concrete meaning and relate it to what they want. It feels like it has two parts, one up to the bold part and one after it. The first part doesn't seem to have much narrative, it's all told from one moment in time - it does refer to the future and the past but no time seems to pass during that being told. It starts slowly feeling like it does, when you start using active verbs in the present tense in the last two or three stanzas before the bold line, but because you started that with an "it WILL break you" this still feels like a flash forward to me. But after the bolded line time seems to have suddenly passed.
I must say the lines "everything you constrain - / they fight against you." confuses me... the most obvious meaning of 'they' is that it refers to 'everything', but 'everything' is singular and 'they' is plural so it'd have to be 'it' instead of 'they', or 'all the things' for 'everything'. If it refers to something else, well, I'm not sure what that would be.
I feel a similar confusion with the lines "They part your lips / to vomit words you never meant to say". Who vomits words? As you say it, it would mean that 'they' do (or it would have to be something like "to make you vomit words"). But why would they have to open up YOUR lips then? And the rest of the line just makes it seem like the words come from your lips rather than theirs - they both make sense but the first seems a better interpretation to me.
The last line is interesting - I wonder who this previously unmentioned 'he' is? Though it could also be a typo for 'this' of course =P
PS - you should give it the /Literature tag! And I'll add it to the /Lit group =)
I thought I had already tagged it as Literature? I feel like I don't understand this site at all!
Great, you saw that there are two parts, that's something. :-) I wasn't sure how clear it was.
The mysterious "they" actually refers to the three lines before: agony, bite marks and everything - they. And it is "you" who is meant to be vomiting. I found that very hard to describe, seeing that it is not at all clear who... Do you have any ideas how to improve that? I'm already tired of my book (God, three years ago I really sucked at writing!) and could use something else for a change. ;-)
"He" was already mentioned in the second paragraph, but who he is won't be explained. Ever. It's just, if you vomit words you didn't mean to say, they often hit someone else in the face.
You have now! =) If you're struggling with anything else let me know!
I see. I thought of that, but I also thought that 'everything' would encompass, well, everything, including agony and bite marks. First you have agony, then bite marks, then everything, which seemed to mean "agony, bite marks, and everything else". So then it is all already in the 'everything' and so you would refer to all of it with 'it'.
But reading it again, I see what you mean - everything is only everything you constrain and that wouldn't include bite marks and agony unless you constrain those.
Ah, you could simply say "so you vomit..." or "and you vomit..." or "to make you vomit..." I think that's clear enough =)
Oh, so he was mentioned earlier. Sorry, I missed that ^^;