[oats]

Eng: I thought this was a vintage verse from you. The rhyming was unique and crisp all the way through. Every word felt necessary and relevant. The steady pace and multi/rhyme scheme switches were really complimentary, definitely entertained just by reading it. The story was good too - in a tournament of writers, I'm sure everyone can relate to the idea of having greater intimacy with one's words than with others. Doesn't hurt that I recall specific arguments with professors about the initial conflict, the whole "why should I study other people's thoughts instead of contributing my own?" This verse connected with me on a number of layers, I truly enjoyed reading it. My only knock: the story was a bit of a safe bet, but at the same time the twist on the topic was fresh and interesting, so it never came off as predictable or cliche.


NYC: The concept was phenomenal - the academic who dedicated more time to his work than his family, and when his daughter was wiped away, he loses it. The memory of his daughter is equivalent to the past he studied. The comparison between his daughter and his magnum opus was subtle, but noticeable, and fleshed out the character. It wasn't that he didn't love his daughter, he was just caught in the vertigo of his work/passion. It was an interesting conflict, no question. Personally, I would have liked to see his dissertation be about history somehow. It would have fit well following the conversation with Custard.

I'm also torn on how I feel about the writing. There were some truly beautiful lines in there (clay/steel line comes to mind), but because you wanted to fit in the full wording it stretched some of the lines out to the point they became rhythmically unrecognizable. It didn't flow together with the whole, even though many of those lines definitely stood out on their own. In a way, I'm glad, because your descriptions demanded those extra words, but on the other hand, it did somewhat compromise the readability. But you made the right call - better to have good writing than good flow.


Vote: This is another back and forth affair. English had a more polished, complete verse, but NYC had a much greater aim, and for the most part pulled it off. Like Split/Vulgar, this comes down to sheer preference, as there is very little separating the two verses. On a first read-through, I was going with Eng, but after a couple of re-reads I felt stronger about the grandiose attempt from NYC. Another really dope match, tip of the hat to both men.