Two Squares and a Mule

[ilovewomenandbeer]

In basic critique, the poem was good when read as an intense spoken word. But in the first read it is somewhat disorienting. I personally had to read it twice to understand the parallels of Slavery and Chess. It may also be that I am not native to US so had some trouble understanding context. I believe if seen from a foreign POV the poem may seem difficult to understand.

I understand that keeping the lines short and concise was important to give that quick cut from line to line but it also led to this phenomenon where before even grasping the full weight and understanding of one line, i was, for the lack of a better word, obligated to move forward to the next.

This is my first critique so I do not know if anything I said was at all valuable or a valid point. Please let me know if I am wrong somewhere.

I really appreciate the critique. The disorientation you mentioned is actually somewhat intentional. I tried to keep the lines short and quick so the poem moves almost like chess moves themselves — sudden shifts from one image to another.
The parallels between chess and slavery are meant to reveal themselves gradually, which is why some of the imagery might feel fragmented on the first read. Your point about the context being harder from a non-U.S. perspective is also really fair, since the title references the phrase “forty acres and a mule,” which comes from a broken Reconstruction-era promise to formerly enslaved people.
So needing a second read actually makes sense, and I appreciate you pointing that out. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.