Oh, why not? Let's focus on a specific title.
Dedicated to the WTC and its victims.
Who would probably have preferred not to have badly written poetry dedicated to their memory. Poor things.
Fast, fast, I’m coming to you
Fast fast, faster than you can imagine.
This is meaningless. What does speed have to do with anything?
I’m the terror of the world,
The Terror of the innocent,
I am the Terror who will break you down.
The repetitive use of "terror" is trite. Of course it's terrifying - a good poet should be able to select words that aren't so blunt and contain more linguistic subtlety. Find metaphors. Find, well,
poetry because, despite its claim to the contrary, this isn't so much poetry as sentence fragments tossed out with random indentations.
Fear me ! Because I am the terror and fright.
Here's again the repetition with the most banal semantics imaginable.
Fear me ! I am the hero of the bloody night.
Uhhm. "Hero"?
Shock and Horror are my food !
The weakness is my drink.
Honey, you aren't writing in German. Drop it with the random capitalization. Your overuse of exclamation marks make the words look like they're being screeched at the top of one's lungs; the effect is about as pleasant as noises from a construction site.
I will make your nightmares come true.
About as original as butter on toast.
I will ride on the minds of my very own victims,
Of those I have possessed the blood I will drink.
I will eat out their brains.
So, the speaker is a vampire/illithid hybrid?
Fanatism is my lair !
Money is my bed.
Innocense is bad food for me.
Except it's spelled "fanaticism" and "innocence." What dictionary are you using - Martian? Oh, and here again is where the verse makes no sense. What in blazes does money have to do with
anything? "Innocence is bad food for me"? That's some of the most incompetently constructed sentence I've ever seen.
Now, if you want to be shocking? Look to better poets and see how they do it. Here's an excerpt from an imagery considered shocking by critics from one of John Donne's
Holy Sonnets:
Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
...
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
The poet's dealing with a crisis of faith, wherein he asks God to abuse and rape him so he can become "chaste." (Yes, really.) It's shocking because it's blasphemous, and the poem's full of contradictions (imprisonment for freedom, rape for chastity) and strong language (the poet implores God to burn and break him to pieces).
That is the kind of poetic violence that works, or at least one of the many kinds.
Blathering on and on about something that's abjectly
obvious (oh noes! The WTC tragedy was horrifying! Uh, yeah. Tell us something we don't know already)... does not work so well. Oh, and though most modern poets don't give a damn about rhyming, good ones tend to give a damn about
rhythm. This? No rhythm, just sentence fragments structured chaotically.
