[Certain]

Lars: Your take on the topic was spot-on, encapsulated by your brilliant closing line. I think you rooted right to the heart of what the artist envisioned with this illustration, then expanded from there to provide the backstory. Unfortunately, that backstory came off as very procedural staid. You simply described the popular scientific theories behind creation and evolution. You spent an awful lot of time on prehistory, which makes sense since most of the universe's existence is prehistory. But it's also boring and without much real comment on the emphasis of that last line. Had you started with the original man or perhaps even with where you left off in your verse against me, the beginnings of speech, you could have driven the point home better by fueling your content with conflict. Conflict drives great stories. Part of the issue here is that your writing is so matter-of-fact, polished and lacking in judgment. This can be an asset quite often for you, as was evident in our battle (which I bring up twice because this verse definitely recalls that one). But here you were so big-picture that I wanted something more than a perfectly rhymed voiceover to a planetarium show. That's what this felt like. The mechanics and word choice were outstanding, and no part of me is overlooking that. The rhymes were ridiculously deep, and you stayed in form throughout the verse. But it never moved into the realm of being compelling or fresh.

dead man: This verse read a bit like a tug of war. Your style, the one you use so often in Open Mic verses, is so distinct that it sometimes seems you have struggles batting it back a little for storytelling and other topical verses. You did this well in Round 1, which isn't to say that verse was better for it. We are the writers we are because we are the writers we are, so denying your individualist style is directly playing against your strengths. The tug of war here comes from a rather complex outline and story stream that required more direct writing and your own need to be creative and clever and a bit ethereal. Ultimately, it gave your verse character. The opening six lines initially rubbed me as a bit of delaying, but on the second and third reads it became more obvious you were simply building a world. Your lack of direct imagery hurt you in managing this task, particularly on that first read. But that's a big part of your style, forcing readers to pay close attention and connect dots rather than connecting them yourself. (Lars is the opposite, as he does a great job of connecting dots and pulling strings and erecting signposts for his readers, which is what makes this battle so interesting.) I wish we could have a deeper glimpse into exactly what led to Triton's decision to sacrifice himself in order to create the land, but I very much liked the image you created. The mix of mythology and commentary on civilization was smart. You meandered at times and definitely are prone to naval-gazing because you know how talented you are. But really, those overwrought parts are some of the more interesting to read because they give us a little insight into your mind. The dissertation in the end about the sacrifices made by greater forces to put us here was thoughtful. Ultimately, that thoughtfulness won you the battle in my eyes. You went to a deeper level in your analysis than Lars, who probably outwrote you on the basis of his more challenging and tightly wound composition.

Vote: dead man