Well I am not going to comment on the form and presentation of the pieces as iI feel they are perfect as is. What I did notice is that the first piece makes the reader a protagonist, and even though the scenery is daunting I still feel on has a chance to win against the scarecrow ...
The second is more impersonal basically the protagonist is observer but does not necessarily have to be involved in what's happening. The scarecrow is beconning whomever no one specific , and yet this one feels darker. One gets the feeling that whatever victim that scarrow is gonna get will not stand a chance against him.
Well, I'm not sure I'd say that in the second, the "protagonist" is an observer (and I'd pick "narrator"), in fact, I agree with you that the second is more impersonal, more detached, and I'd take it as far as to say that in the second, there is no narrator. There is no protagonist.
It's just a third person narrative.
In the first, there's definitely a call to action. Something is about to happen.
In the second, it's more of what this began as, painting an image.
So yes, I feel both add up to the right atmosphere, of a call to action, but with a heavier emphasis on the picture being drawn.
Though I'll ask, is it necessarily the Scarecrow that is the opposition in the second? Or is it the "key"? Or the field? Or the sunset? Or the entire vista your eyes see? Hmmm.
to me yes but only because it promised something and thus for me became the creator of the scene.