Both placed their writing emphasis on different aspects. Mike Wrecka seemed like a conscious effort to be as coherent as possible, it was purely directive, a little amount of frills and tricks etc - it really established a kind of pulpit feel. Very good elder-statesman tone, the part about the child added to this effect. Strictly focused with little deviation from the central theme, which was excellent. Timeless seemed to place effort on the imagination of the language, there were a lot of similes and mixed metaphors and stuff like that. At first glance it seemed a bit chaotic, but it was pulled in together nicely by the second half of the last paragraph. Both competitors had the same moral judgements, just presented in different ways, while MW focused on presenting the moral judgement from a mature perspective, Timeless brought the reader into the mind of a childlike perspective. I think all the flowery language from Timeless was intended to reflect a rampant imagination trying to 'get better' - escapism from a harsh reality. Overall, MW was a lot more focused and perhaps even technically superior, but with this exact topic some of Timeless writing quirks really hit the mark. Voting for Timeless.
|