[Certain]

Mike Wrecka: I don't have a problem with retelling a well-known story, and most of the voters recognized this one. But I do think that upon doing so, you must really up the ante on your writing. Providing a new twist or new bit of background on a character would be a good step. Basically, you have to understand that your verse will be taken in context of the source material, which then puts the pressure on you to step it up. Your slight twist was that the man who reads actively hated everyone and dreamed they would die, whereas the original story was that he was an unbelievably nice guy who had a really hard life. I think that change was a bit of a mistake because it made us unable to root for your character. The beauty of that episode of The Twilight Zone is in the way it made the audience so happy for the man that the rest of the world dying a terrible (if unseen) death actually seemed like a good thing. The darker version you presented here made me actively dislike this character, whom I probably easily could have related to as an introvert who loves to read and rarely has enough time for it all. The ironic twist felt more like a stern lesson about evil thoughts than an example of life's unbridled cruelty. I also thought you could have mentioned the glasses before the last line, since they're such an important part of the story. The Twilight Zone actor wore huge glasses so that they became his defining character trait. The writing itself was typical Mike Wrecka stuff. You keep things clear and moving and your flow is flawless but simple. So there's not much in the way of flourishes, which also could have helped raise the bar a bit given the retelling aspect of the topic. But the strongest point of this was its relation to the topic. Put simply, using this story as an entry point for a moment of clarity was very nice.

Diode: The mind-of-the-terrorist stuff has been done before, and this was not a particularly fresh take on it. It's interesting you took umbrage with his retelling of a story, then did the same. I understand the difference, particularly if Mike Wrecka were to have received credit from voters for creativity in the plot. But he didn't, and you won't either. Your verse was all about the details, and some sections of that were done well. I think your resentment made you cast this character as a bit two-dimensional, though. He was sort of the archetype terrorist, rather than a unique-thinking person who made a decision that felt correct to him. That's not to say you're wrong, but a verse making us understand better why the terrorist did what he did would have been more difficult and more interesting. But you countered the issue by being detailed. The pace picked up when our character gets on the plane to Florida. Your weak rhymes can be pretty problematic, particularly because you have no room to breath on slant rhymes when you're only rhyming a single syllable. The second-person narration was an interesting choice. It paid off in the end, I suppose, though I'm not sure I liked that ending. Inverting the topic just for that finish made it feel a little forced. I'm of the belief that the best topical verses are the ones that truly define the topic, that can only fit one topic and fit that topic perfectly.

This vote is as tough as I expected it to be. Mike Wrecka hit the topic better. But Diode outwrote him and told a more complete story. But Mike Wrecka had better rhymes and overally mechanics. But Diode used more poetic devices and had more stylistic writing. Both of you were way too judgmental against your main characters. Both of you have written better verses. But I came away more impressed with Diode here. Had Mike Wrecka fleshed out his character a bit more with a stronger back story, he would have won this even without changing what he already had written. But while neither character was humanized well, that was less important to Diode's verse, which served more as a journalistic story built on methodology and less as an emotionally driven story.

Vote: Diode