Here goes.
Harizon - I feel I've got to disagree with XK about your use of vocabulary. Some of the words themselves are just good words and on surface level, it can look like a really impressive topical BUT - not being a dick here - I'm not sure you know what the words mean, or how to use them in a grammatically correct structure. An example.
An anarchy that none can ever protrude w/ out losing in shame,
Darkness; an aspect in which we make adjacent with names.
I am reading it again and again, and it is literal nonsense. You have a good vocabulary but only to the extent that you put some good words into the box - the artistry kind of stopped there.
Lockhart - I read your first two lines feeling surprised that even after reading the flaws in Harizon's, I felt I was going to have to give him the win because it starts so so forced with the 'kid' interjection, which doesn't seem to gel with the mood of the narration. But, as I read on more and more with yours, elements became stronger. The multies and the rhythm were consistent and pulsing, which made it very readable. You could picture the words being said, and it was quite authentic.
I agree that Lockhart's is not the most complex use of language, but I think this battle indicates that it is better to be too simple than too complex because at least if you have the solid but simple foundations of poetry in place, your end product makes sense.
No hate whatsoever to Harizon - I'm a huge advocate of complex vocab, when it is appropriate - and I would just say you should get some ideas going in the lab and work on your grammar structures.
Fairsies as always, - I give this to Lockhart.
__________________
|