Probably most difficult battle to judge, second being your last battle, certain. You seem to have an exposition of very creative ideas, astounding the audience and forcing them to delve deeper. Unlike some other writers on the forum who have an irreverent consuetude and familiarity, most often mistaken by having a usage of words so vast, it makes the reader almost out of an element. But you do the opposite. You create a context in which not the everyday, or moreso common thematic element is at hand. You remind me of the movie "The Artist" or "Frances Ha", and I use black and white references very very strongly here. You seem black and white. Where you don't paint pictures, you draw them in pencil. But your pencil detailing is so vast, your own world is just as vibrant, but surely much prematurely obscure than a oil canvass masterpiece. Detailing your limn like artistry to exponentially outline your strengths rather than your weaknesses or should I say your side of a skillset not to entirely refined; yet. I read lars piece, twice. Yours, 4 times. Because, it's not that you have trouble outlining a story. IT's just not for the lighthearted, or the lazy. Which is why so many people can't follow black and white. They choose not too. A catering to the audience enables you to give up more. You become what you may not want too, but that's part of being a writer. Yes, we write for ourselves at the end. But with no other critic, nobody else to read it, to feel what we're feeling, then it sort of has no purpose. Or it might, if you're into that, but many writers aren't, though they say they are. Lars, has more of a style suited for a wider audience. He approppri-ates to the lazier, smoother read audience. You cast in a realm for singular audience, those who are already experienced with your type of prose. I use boxing as a singular example in most cases, because, unlike writing, boxing has a outright definition. Those that don't understand boxing to it's science, but understand the concepts of punching, and getting hit are more prone to have incorrect assimilation based on how fights are judged. Most boxing fans on this site had Pacquiao winning, but I had bradley winning, though I certainly have to admit that Pacquiao, could have easily taken the fight, but I felt he chose not too, for some odd reason. Now enough of the comparisons and breaking down your verse in an ambiguous matter. I think certains overall cast of imagery was lacking a bit, both of your verses were. Lars created a monotone movement in images that was actually quite pleasant. We usually connect monotone to something unpleasant, but that's a common mistake. I usually start off by describing the mechanics then delve into the story part, or the message of each verse, then I finally break it down in relation to the topic at hand; hence 'topical' tourney. Lars mechanics, I've noticed, (that I previously had not) were actually used in a short stemmed template but used very well. The weaving of clever transitional phrasing, was actually good and I'm taking more notice.
That fight symbolizes the former part of both your verses.
I'm already familiar with some of certains writing, and can see that he maintained a certain standard which he was already held too. Lar's story was good. A top tier writing with very little to no mishaps. The overall connection to an alpha/beta was tied in, I'd say, particularly well, though I think the idea itself was a bit rugged. Not rugged in a sense of, unclear, but actually the opposite, I felt it was so easy to spot, that I think the creativity of it was not in the story but just how you weaved your story from beginning to finish. In relation to the quote given, I think it was a good score. The creativity of the project of the story was average, compared to your opponents. You presented central ideas, a philosophy between two internal characters and theme that was stable and posed as a linear thought and staple all the way through, for that I think you slightly took this. Certain had a good mechanical verse, as well, maybe not as transitionally polished as Lars, but it had decent thematic elements which adjusted the overall flow of the story. The rapport between characters was ok, though the master was a bit repetitive, though I understand the relationship he's trying to build. I felt it may have been a little stretched. The creativity is always there, but I feel you try to use that to your advantage as always, I mean. It isnt bad. every writer caters to something they feel more comfortable with (at the time, usually) and especially if they're in a competition. Lars has his own study. Proper word usage, simple, but entertaining writing. Certain is in tune with his creative side, his last battle he used bulletpoints, and guidelines and a whole plethora of things. Even the usage of the backwards writing, which in my opinion, is a bit too much. Though it didn't take away from the overall umph of the verse. I was sort of lost reading your verse, not entirely, but in relation to the quote, I can understand the beginning, but the end is a LITTLE unclear. I can make the correlation, it's not so forthright, but it is good. I felt it was a little off kilter. You can connect things better. And although it was a good connection, I felt it was a bit too over the top. Both of you, in your respective weaknesses, could have done better. This battle was very good, but very hard to judge. It was entirely too close. And on a summer day I might have chose differently. Thanks gentlemen. You never upset. Good luck