You actually consider kinetic art functional? That's funny. I see we have very different philosophies on function. I can't do anything with a kinetic sculpture. Movement is not a function. What you're referring to is an "Action". An action and a function are two different things. I'm going to keep using that phrase different philosophy, different philosophy, different philosophy, different philosophy, different philosophy, different philosophy. If you want an agreement, you have to first accept why our opinions are different.

Of course we have different opinions. but i don't want to hear excuses as to why theres a large gap in the story telling process. The problem isn't that we want two different things. I just want good story telling.

Did you honestly think I go to art school and never thought about kinetic art. You had to have been drawing at straws. I spent  hours trying to figure out how you can fit architecture into that description, and you bring up kinetic art. Because for instance in art history, they usually pay attention to architecture as well as religious art which seems very functional. And there's a reason why it still works, but I'm not going to get into that.

Based on the anime art i've seen, the lack of real-world proportions integrated into them, i wouldn't have imagined you were in art school. If you were in the art school i was in, they would've asked you to stop drawing anime altogether and focus on proportions and realism. And for good reason as it would get in the way of learning proper proportions and form. Its not that my art school wants me to quit altogether, but most people use it as a crutch.

You better find a better definition for art then, because function exists within art. it may not be the core, but its there.

Commercial art has a function. And that function is to be pleasing to the consumer. It has nothing to do with it being representational, it has nothing to do with color, or line in isolation, it has to do with the consumer. The consumer is in complete control of the illustration being made. That is not art. That is business.

You mean the client. The client has complete control of the illustration. And if they did, they wouldn't hire an artist to do it. And it is intended to be pleasing to the consumer. That is for sure. But don't understimate how much work and skill that actually takes.

There is art in business. Its just a compromise. and that's what I've been trying to highlight to you. You can't treat it like deviantart where you can be selfish and just say its for you and you alone when it comes to storytelling. You have to make compromises in order to grow and understand what it means to make good art/story.

story telling has a function too.

If you asked me what is my artwork supposed to make you feel. It would be stupid to answer that. Answering that only serves to belittle the effectiveness of it. What art makes you feel is personal to you.

This is why you're not progressing when it comes to story telling. Story telling without trying to engage with your audience and just making them accept whatever group of words. I'm going to tell you again: Stop treating story telling like visual art. Its not the same thing.

it requires more thought into the audience.

Again philosophical disagreement. Kinetic art is not functional. An action is not a function. At least to me, it's not. That's my philosophy. Maybe that's not your philosophy, it doesn't actually matter to me. You could say its function is to move, but the movement that takes place is artistic because it could make any movement. Why does it move the way it does if it could move any way it wanted? Why does a painting look the way it does if it could look like anything it wanted? That is art.

you're just contradicting yourself.

This actually isn't an argument. This is a discussion. You are the one who refuses to discuss. I simply stated, that we disagree. I stated what I believe and then you argued against it. If you don't want to argue, stop arguing and start discussing.

i don't want to hear that we have differences in philosophies as to why you're not progressing or that we want different things out of your story. That throws out all the valid critique on your stories.

Its not a matter of "I want this" and "you want that". In the end, the goal is to write objectively better.  Like i said, i'm never going to force you to write a character with qualities i enjoy. BUT i will ask that characters meet the criteria for good story-telling.

Characters need to have personalities, flaws, quirks, redeeming qualities, goals. etc. And if your story progresses through characters, then you have to explore those things as soon as possible. Otherwise, why continue reading?

"What is your story suppose to make me feel when i read it?" And you simply could not answer it.

This is one of those things where I felt answering the question would be considered an argument. Obviously I was correct because you refuse to have a discussion.

So i'm going to say this: if you can't answer this question, that is the reason you've never been able to progress. You never tried to control the audiences feelings and thoughts through story telling.

I gain so much satisfaction when someone gives me a review of my story and feel or have an opinion on my characters and it ends up being exactly what i wanted to achieve. It tells me the reader is connecting to the story the way i wanted and they see it the way i wanted it to be told.

I aim to do that at a scene by scene basis. Each scene has purpose not just for the goals i want to achieve in the story but also for the audience. They have to gain some satisfaction, some thought or opinion or feeling out each scene. It can't be at a chapter by chapter basis. And you notice this with manga and anime how the art changes slightly when they want to make you laugh, and go back to detailed when they want you to focus on the story.

My perspective on characters and storytelling in general has actually changed since the time I wrote FNO, but for me it was important that the character plays his role. I was always looking at the story as a whole. You were looking at the details. I think over time I could have gone back and fixed some of the elements and details that were distracting.

No. i wasn't looking at the "Details". i was looking at what's missing in your story. What you fail to execute. What you just don't do.

In FNO, your characters just "existed". There were story-like events that emulate a story, but there was a huge disconnect between me and the story. these characters did nothing to highlight who they were. They were just there, they had no real human qualities. Its like trying to turn a couple in a restaurant you see from a distance into a story.

There were some characters whose role was to have a personality. Their role in the story revolved entirely around how it would feel to interact with them. We can continue to compare FNO to art here it'd be as if I drew Tara from FNO and one arm was too small. Even if it was intentional, the statement the piece was making had nothing to do with proportion or arms or anything, the arm could be regualar sized, and the statement would be the same, right. I'm still speaking Hypothetically here, in the art world we could call that small arm "distracting". The arm is completely distracting from the actual message of the piece and should be changed.

You also have to stop comparing story-telling to visuals. Art can be completed on a single canvas. Story telling can't always be done that way. Each chapter is posted separately, and i review each individual chapter as if it was a manga that you want to pursue.

Tara, was not human. Tara by the things she said, by the things she did. Had no values. SHe had no personality. She didn't feel real. She felt like something only meant for you to manipulate and create

That's a similar problem with Tara and FNO or Blade Regalia, is that the poor elements of the story are distracting you. The story's message doesn't revolve around Tara's personality, but the fact that she didn't have one, was distracting. And that should be fixed. If the story were making a statement on personality, or the abstract personalities as a whole were in of themselves making a statement, then that would make more sense from an artistic point of view.

Its more than just distracting. Its the fact that she had no personality meant you really didn't think deeply into what your audience should feel. (i'm sounding repetitious on purpose because you have to acknowledge these aspects)

Blade Regalia did create some challenges for me because it was a commercial work, however. The story was going to be illustrated or animated and free to view even without having bought the game. It was purely a service to the gamers, not as a commercial venture. The game itself, was not story driven. It's multiplayer. That being the case I wanted to pursue it as some kind of median between artistic and commercial venture.

What has changed is now the game is also story driven, and that's lead me to make some changes. So now it's much more commercial than artistic. I still love it. I love seeing what it's becoming. I agree that's definitely a mistake not to explore the world or to explore who Katherine is because even within the game the world is very expansive lore wise. It begs you to learn more about it. You do have different cultures and different races and the different Regalia depending on it and it's really fun to explore now. I agree there were missteps there.

This is the compromise i'm talking about. Just because its not what you originally envisioned or had to make compromises, doesn't mean you stop calling it art.

You're not Real probably has a lot of potential just by the name. But the story itself is not good. The protagonist is based on a character from Blade Regalia by the same name who actually is a sociopath. But in Blade Regalia he's an antagonist.

This was a problem. You can't just switch out a role and put it on that character's perspective and assume people will relate or connect with the character. So why do people want to follow a sociopath in a story? Theres no redeeming quality. At that point, we're just seeing a sociopath be a sociopath. It doesn't service the audience.

It invoked a feeling alright, and that was to be annoyed as heck. But my goal in writing is to make sure its pleasing the reader enough to move onto the next chapter. So if your character was so annoying i couldn't read it anymore.

The story didn't really say anything either. I thought it would be interesting to push the idea that "love didn't exist" or that love was specifically the "You" the title is referring to, but the protagonist was poorly executed. Now I can look at it and see some things that would've made it work a lot better. If the protagonist's struggles seemed more unfair, then it might have been more interesting, but I didn't like the protagonist either.  I didn't know how to fix him. You gave me solutions, but they wouldn't solve the bigger problem so I abandoned it. I would basically just have to torture the protagonist

So this is where story telling is different. We're creating essentially real people. And the goal is that these characters are believable. And if we want to achieve something out of them, we have to manipulate their surroundings to fit that purpose.