Originally Posted by Mael

I agree with this. A dead man verse is almost like a compilation of metaphorical one-liners. The problem I have, as you mentioned, is finding direction. I feel as though the content of his writing holds a lot of substance and wit, but isn't grounded to a topic, instead drifts off into a series of reflective thoughts that make his work entirely conclusive, opposed to depth and participatory value, leaving little to no room for interpretation. He sort of tells us the moral(s) of the story in greater details than the story itself. More swag, less objectivity. Abstract. Lateral thinker. That whole lack of capitalization and intentional broken grammar. I picture dead man as a person interested in the more grotesque nature of life. Semi-introverted and extremely specific. His sometimes over abusive usage of exotic & obscure words, I find, gains its aesthetic value from sound rather than syntax.

Lars, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of everything I just said. He's more the mathematician. Cold, formulaic, open-ended. The Armchair bandit.

Either way, I'm just a mid tier topicalist having a little rant. Both are part of the GOATs.