The Passionate Shepherd vs. The Nymph

So now continuing with our theme of unrequited love, we move on to The Passionate Shepherd by Christopher Marlowe ( you know, that guy who was stabbed) and The Nymph's Reply ( you know that guy who was also killed). So basically what happens is that a shepherd, who happens to be passionate (creative title, I know), happens to be the most whipped guy on the face of the planet, and promises all kinds of stuff to this women that he loves. The woman, or nymph, in apparent true woman fashion, rejects the shepherd. (OUCH! That's gotta sting a little...) And then the poems are done. No death, no battles, no unnecessary suicides. Basically in a word: boring. But what they lack in any excitement whatsoever, they more than make up for in weird poetic types. You, see Passionate Shepherd is a pastoral poem, while the Nymph's Reply is, wait for it, anti-pastoral. But that's not what we're talking about. Who would win between them? Well, on the one hand, the shepherd but be quite charming, and he is a good, honest man. That should count for something, right? As for the nymph, I can't quite decide whether she is one of the very first feminists, or the biggest  gold digger around, I mean, she did reject the shepherd just because he didn't have any money or wealth. She claimed that it was because love was fleeting, but I think she wanted a excuse to reject his proposal. The one thing that we do not know, however, is what happened to these two people. Did the Nymph ever learn to love? Did the Shepherd ever find someone else?
And the winner is.....
The Nymph
She might not be the nicest person is the world, but at least he's not completely whipped like the Shepherd. Learn to stand up for yourself man!

Satan vs. Beowulf

 All right, this is it, the big one. The two epic heroes, fighting for the chance to continue on. Both are from the two most epic pieces of work, Beowulf and Paradise Lost, if just in length and intricate plotline. One is from the oral epic that was told during the anglo-saxon times, before William the Conqueror come over to England , and "civilized it", and the other was written by a stuffy latin master, John Milton, who was simply trying to write the best thing ever written. No big deal. Now Beowulf was the one who was trying to rid the Danes of the horrible monster, Grendel. Which, in true epic hero fashion, he did with great success, savagely ripping off his arm and hanging it to the ceiling. Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Now Satan has a much more interesting story. He tried to oust God (yes the one and only) from heaven, but him and his archangels couldn't quite get the job done, so God has to create a place for him to suffer in, called, you guessed it, HELL. And yes it did hurt when he fell from heaven, just to answer your cheesy question. So, yes it is slightly contested as to whether he was really a hero or not, but for all intents and purposes, he will be a hero. So, now that we have some background, who would win, if these two were to ever battle it out?
On the one hand, Beowulf has super-human strength (but so does Satan) but he also had good character and strong moral fibre (and Disney taught us that good always triumphs over evil), but he is the only one of his kind, and no matter how strong he is, he's ultimately alone. Satan has a whole bunch of evil minions to help him do his bidding, like Beezlebub. He also has an entire kingdom of criminals, ones who probably might help him out. However, he is kinda attached to a lake of fire though, and constantly in pain, so he might be a little weaker than he would have been pre-skirmish with God.
And the winner is....
SATAN

Yes, I realize that he is evil, not a very nice person at all. But the only person that he lost to was God, the supposedly Almighty power. My bet is that he would be able to beat anyone else who comes in his way, even tied down in Hell. Beside Beowulf is only human, and a human who doesn't believe in God (religion wasn't yet created when he was around), so where is he going to end up? Hell. Case closed.

Sonnet vs. Epic

Alright, two of the most famous and most common types of written works that young scholars such as myself are privileged enough to study, the sonnet and the epic, two very different styles of writing, and two of the most popular. Sonnets are 14 line poems which usually have a specified rhyme scheme and meter. They can be further subdivided into 2 separate categories, Petrarchan, and Shakespearan. Oh dear, I think I swallowed a textbook... Anyways, the only difference is that Petrarch used a different rhyme scheme (which conveniently gave ABBA a name), and that Petrarch was a monumental creeper ( like 300 of his sonnets were about 1 woman). Sonnets were usually about love, but sometimes they could be about dying or any other cheery events going on in your life. Epics, well, they deserve their name. They are huge poems that tell a story, but not just any story. There are massive battles, huge fight scenes-the literature equivalent of the best action movie you've ever seen. The poet even has to ask for help from a muse, for fear of the dreaded writer's block. I mean it takes commitment to write an epic, but they are really quite long, and the collective ADHD  of my generation basically means their kinda obsolete. But sonnets are short, simple and appeal to many people, for you don't really require an extensive working knowledge of every Greek and Roman god that ever lived.
Who would win?
The EPIC
I think that they're pretty evenly matched, but the epic just nudged the sonnet out of the competition, by being, well, epic. I mean you don't really hear kids going around and saying, "Whoa man! That was soooooo sonnet!" Right?

Petrarch vs. Shakespeare

Two giants of their time, the Italian revolutionist and Shakespeare, who could be the most famous man in the world (after Walt Disney) battling it out. Who will win? Who will lose? Who will I chose? Lets start with the numbers; Shakespeare wrote 38 plays, 154 sonnets, and 2 long narrative poems, while Petrarch 1 epic poem, 366 sonnets and various other works in Latin. Alright so far it's 1-all. While Shakespeare was considered the British father of poetry, Petrarch was considered the Father of Humanism, which as far as I know is like being the King of the Renaissance, so I think Petrarch wins that round. But Petrarch is hardly known today amongst the general public, but Shakespeare is quite well known. I mean who's heard of a Petrarch festival? They both helped to revolutionize the sonnet though, each developed their own method  of writing these simple, effective works of writing. Petrarch loved ABBA, he used it to help design his rhyme scheme, while Shakespeare used a simple (boring) rhyme scheme of AB AB etc... Lame. I expected better from the "Father of English poetry".  Both were used quite often after they were long gone, but those writers who wanted a challenge preferred to attempt the Petrarchan sonnet. But...
Who would win?
Petrarch
Its hard to compare these two awe-inspiring authors, but Petrarch told me to "Take a Chance on Me", that "The Winner Takes All". It's hard to reason with that logic.

Alright, moving on!

Having finished with the first pool, we plunge headfirst into something a bit more modern, that is those who lived in the previous 4 centuries. There are only 2 major "themes" this unit, Romanticism and er.. non-Romanticism. Nevertheless, here are Pool B's face-offs:
Rape of the Lock vs. A Modest Proposal
Robbie Burns ( Happy birthday!!!) vs. William Blake
Dramatic Monologue vs. Villanelle
Mariner vs. Baron
The Tyger vs. the Lamb
Duke of Ferrera vs. Ulysses
Dylan Thomas vs. Thomas Gray
George Gordon, Lord Byron vs. Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Now, let the battles begin! And as always, the winners will move on to face the champs of Pool A, the losers are out of the running for 
ULTIMATE LIT CHAMPION!!!

Rape of the Lock vs. A Modest Proposal

MMM.. Good!

 Now on the surface, these two don't seem to have much in common. Rape of the Lock is a mock epic written by Alexander Pope, about, what is essentially, a haircut. A modest proposal is a leaflet written by Jonathan Swift, about eating children (no, I'm not making this up). But both are satire of the cleverest kind, aimed at making fun of the wealthy (WE ARE THE 99%!). Now Pope chooses to satirize how the rich made things that really weren't that important, really important (oh my God guys, she's TOTALLY wore that dress to Lord Pompous' ball too), that there might actually be things more useful to life than how many petticoats one's wearing. Swift takes a meaner, or if your prefer the actual term Juevenalian, satire, to display how the poverty and overpopulation is a true problem, and needs to be fixed by the English. But you have to admit, he makes a damn logical argument for eating children. Baby back ribs anyone? Now I must say, as an English snob, Rape of the Lock is written in a much more interesting way, with whole parodying of Paradise Lost thing (even if Rape of the Lock has a much different context today that it did when it was written....). But, the subject matter of A Modest Proposal is both astonishing and utterly brilliant so...
Who would win?
A Modest Proposal
Which would you prefer to read about? A really dramatic haircut? Or solving the worlds problems by eating excess babies?

Robbie Burns vs. William Blake

Now here we have, perhaps the most unfair match that I have ever cooked up. And I admit that freely and without guilt. On one side there is Robert Burns,also known as Rabbie Burns, Scotland's favourite son, the Ploughman Poet, Robden of Solway Firth, the Bard of Ayrshire and in Scotland as simply The Bard, and on the other side is William Blake, who today is considered a poetical genius, but had little of the success that Burns had. In fact, most people Blake was indeed, to use the cliche (sorry), mad as a hatter. If had to compare Blake to anyone in the world it would be Vincent van Gogh (whose last name is literally pronounced like you're  trying to cough up a hairball). Both were vastly unappreciated, passionate, talented, artistic, and reputedly crazy. To be fair though, Blake didn't cut off his ear or kill himself, but otherwise they are practically the same person. Blake wrote a fair few number of poems, the most well-known being Songs Of Innocence and The Lamb and The Tyger (yes spelled with a "Y", I already told you he was insane), and he helped to inspire the Romantic age. So basically if he was born, like 50 years later, he would be just as successful as say Keats or Shelley. And as for Robert Burns, well the name kind of speaks for itself, well that and the fact that he has his own holiday. But just for giggles, I'll tell you what he wrote: mostly poems about his native Scotland, notably To A Mouse, and To A Louse ( again, not making this up), and also helped inspire the Romantic poets. Oh, and he died when he was only 37, just like van Gogh. Weird...
Who would win?
Robert Burns

Burns wins, obviously, as far as this contest goes. But as for the best use of the English language that I can understand? Blake definitely would win. Sod off if you don't like it ye wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie!