[@Calle] 
>Figured my response would serve better in the discussion section.

Thank you for taking the time to give me a constructive review.

First allow to me to clarify my intentions while writing the story that go heavily into many of the things brought up here. I wanted to create an older fairytale-esque experience with morals and something more bittersweet. My usual heavily crafted style of prose yet fairly simple plot was certainly meant to amplify that feeling.

I can see it the alliteration being a bit of tongue twister for the eyes, but I feel it’s just a personal style that I enjoyed the challenge of reading. If there’s any particular lines you believe could be written better, don’t hesitate to give me your thoughts. 

The ‘acceptance’ of the beast was simply more in line with a fairytale/different world. Hence the strong scented candles to ward off hungry packs of doggos. I thought it was pretty clear it didn’t attempt to reflect reality. The authority absolutely noticed his 'wanderer' status, as his interaction was merely concerned with getting in trouble over a citizen or visitor to his town being injured under his watch. That sympathy was swiftly removed once he knew he was a “non-citizen” lawlessly roaming. I also don’t make the beast’s identity known because it’s better left to the imagination. (In my opinion.)

I certainly gave every character more of a purpose and personality than most stories of this nature, not to toot my own horn. But I probably would have expanded further if the word count would have allowed it. Making the four characters warmth inside the pub make them seem more like actual friends before revealing their colder personalities when they go outside. But it had to be glossed over for word constraints. Perhaps, it was better off focusing on the driving force of the story anyway.

I’m not intending to shoot the messenger. I can (and greatly) appreciate and understand those thoughts. My writing tries to not just use big words for the sake of it, even if I admittedly fail that sometimes, but crafting them into sentences that make them unique and not your average typical boring sentences.

I’ve said this before. But it’s often a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. Where many of my stories will be vaguely expressed with, “Things are too brief and the sentences are so fragmented.” or “Things are so detailed and long, the sentences are far too complex.” And I so rarely get shown the “just right” that people seem to constantly be looking for. I’m sure there’s always something I can do to improve, but it’s difficult sometimes to grasp which direction I need to go. I think for contests especially, I should be (and aim for) reaching outside the box, even if my prose or symbolism becomes too dense as a result.

For the instance the paragraph brought up, I can certainly see certain words I could axe without losing much to the overall narrative. (Luxurious, only added because same 1st letter as layers.) And words I could certainly simplify to mean the same thing. (Debauchery was just me showing off. Ha Ha.) But I’m not 100% sure if it greatly affects the outcome. 

Plus the “grinding his thinning patience against his forehead.” I probably could have swapped for, “He rubbed his forehead with his fingers, because he was losing patience.” But I don’t feel like that is a better, nor more concise sentence. Even with the latter part removed.

Thank you very kindly. I feel the structure is so rarely played with for a forum writing contest that has those tools to play with. So I also thought/hoped it worked well. Once again, I sincerely appreciate the effort made to give me a review and vote. I hope you find this response grateful.

And I also appreciate pointing these few things out to me.
1. Yeah that’s a mistake. It’s supposed to be “creature’s”, might have been autocorrected incorrectly.
2. You’re probably correct with that one. I’m unsure.
3. A stray example would be nice to get my head wrapped around it. But I get the gist.