Week 13: 5. Adonis (5-7) vs. 6. Vulgar (5-3) \\ Adonis wins 4-1

[big baby]

The thing about Vulgar is that I feel he always connects tangentially in metaphorical speak. I never see him storytell or come directly to the topic, or commit on a sentence or parenthetical type phrase for long. In fact he barely he even speaks to the character, or about his own, its moreso a myopic ruse in the fourth person which leads to this wide array of image that can be comprehended. IT usually takes about 3-4 reads to fully comprehend what you THINK it may comprehend. That's a real turn off at times, and I think that's why people call you 'weird'. Because in your own mind you completely make sense and it is clever to you, and it indeed MAY be clever, but it's sometimes tooo much of a stretch for average readers that are a bit in a gray zone reading your writing. When I write I sort of tread the lines of this gray zone and I quickly come back to just make sure that what you're reading of me isn't a gray zone but it is my not so obscure-obscure weirdness. That's the opposite of you. You craft this imagery that isn't imagery, but just a tangent of a tangent of a metaphor you thought you think you mightve meant sometime- somewhere. It's a bit confusing. You use some paraphrasing and mesh a texture of idiomatic phrasing to complete a almost obscure stanza that couldve been easily delivered with better wording, phrasing and a step out of the comfort zone. I think THIS is where you need to read to better yourself.

"The murky stairs are where the beasts of mercy fare
the union between the chalk outlines and pigeon silhouettes that were worse for wear
A surface lair exhibiting a certain urban flair"

This is almost a filler-like inception. I think more thematic language couldve been used about the chalk outlines that create a almost urban intensity, instead of actually using the phrasing 'urban flair' you couldve drawn out a more autobiographical prose where the chalk outline connect emotionally rather than fleeing dimensions on paper when you write it. It's a bit fleeting and uncomfortable and you just elongated a sentence to make up for 3 stanzas that couldve easily been morphed to better superfocus your singular make-ups from primary language in relation to the picture : i.e ASPHALT, URBAN, CHALK OUTLINE. This gave very little imagery, very little symbolism and idk wtf a pigeon thing is. Things like these can make you a super formidable opponent rather than a formidable one. And it's almost a bit upsetting that you can see your opponents verse first (since he dropped first) and go in the absolutely other spectrum of his more observational and audience connecting verse with a vague, lackadaisical forefront.

Adonis on the other hand came with a pistol, and a 500 foot wide target. And shot in space and still hit it just with language alone. His use of thematic language was better than vulgars (in which vulgar barely represented a high step here). His storytelling seems to be tangential too, but I think it's a bit more upfront with the average reader. In one read I can read adonis's verse, opposed to vulgars. Mechanically adonis isn't a high tier force but that doesnt matter. When you deliver tightly knit imagery with a focused central topic as large as 'asphalt' you can surely deliver on all realms... where vulgar is positive, adonis is negative. His central phrasing is very weak, as he just uses a touch of dashing vocabulary and neatly placed words, and more adjectivial sentiments rather than composing anything out of that nature, more connecting metaphorical vibes, more idioms, more similies, more imagery, more prose, more rhythm, etc. He isn't strong in MANY areas, but where he's strong - he's good. And this is where he outshined Vulgar. Just describing stuff. that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. And he did that way better. It's actually a great close battle, and I'm voting for the former post.