Comments

I didn't mean your backgrounds were bad or minimal by any means. I meant the matte comment more figuratively - in that a lot of writers tell a story a very specific way because they think it helps cover inadequate writing. They use a lot of adjectives because they think that's "atmosphere"... But if you take out adjectives, if you take out dialogue, is there still a compelling story being told? Not can a story be told from what's left, but did the writer build enough story to survive having those things removed? Even without a stitch of dialogue, the original Jurassic Park is still a nail-biter. Your stories are the same way, in that the reader can pick it apart, pull out huge chunks of it, and it still tells a story I want to hear. So it's like moving the camera during a matte shot - bad writing can't survive the slightest poking or moving.

You do characters, and everything is in service to them. The world, the environments, the politics... all in service of framing compelling characters. That's awesome because they're amazing characters. If you did stories about global politics, your priorities would be different. Speaking for myself, I almost don't care what you do with the characters because I love watching them in new contexts. Martin will always be Martin, no matter the story, because you know your characters and can always be true to them. It's... A writer being able to pull off a multiverse story where all the alternates are also fully realised characters instead of "Spider-Man, but with a funny hat or goatee". A good craftsman knows their tools well enough to use them in unconventional ways - like, hypothetically, training an AI on your own art, to expedite the parts of creation that are less interesting, instead of using it to generate images (and all with the exact same art style for some reason), creating a Patreon, and making $2.15 from gooners while pretending to be an artist. I think a lot of stupid people would see your use of AI as "cheating", and those people simply have zero understanding or appreciation of actual art. Fucking Worhol used a photocopier to literally create an art "Factory". And he didn't even draw one naked boi on a teddy bear.

I think it's a disease of artists who didn't just come up aping manga artist, they never grew past that to create their own thing... And they never stopped to examine what they were copying. A good artist can make a picture with a couple brush strokes. Economy of media tends to create better art - the whole nothing left to add vs nothing left to take away argument. It's constantly like a magic trick where I'll see an artist create a piece I already saw, and a detailed building exterior is a couple lines or a few strokes. They're not painting a building because rivets are boring. They're showing you the "soul" or "impression" of a building, and letting your brain fill in details, which is what separates an artist from a draftsman. Bad artists don't see how to make something complicated into something easy. Anyone can build a birdhouse, a craftsman does it with a minimum of materials and waste.

The other side is someone like Masamune, his backgrounds are painstakingly hyper detailed - down to spokes in discarded bike wheels - but that's the story he's telling. The world Deunan lives in has impact on the characters and story, so he puts detail into them. He's also an insane person who watches German SWAT training videos to get a single panel perfect... But I'm convinced Masamune is an android built only to make the best manga.

All of this is because I'm not a craftsman with language - in fact I suck at it - so it takes me this long to explain a compliment I made because I'm worried it was mistaken for a critique.

All to say that I come to you for your art, the way you do it. I don't come to you for Patric Nagel art and I won't summon his spirit to write illustrated stories about flexible fembois - and one is no more or less good than the other in any respect.

I'm going to shut up now and stop rambling.

One of your big strengths in your writing is atmosphe. It's not something a lot of writers can or will do. There's a lot of "...this person said this, that person said that, and they're in a bar, by the way" or way too many adjectives used for everything. You'd think they would sense a problem when every noun also comes with a minimum of three descriptors - "...and then a tired, haggard, exhausted Jim climbed exhaustedly into his messy, unkempt, bed and ran strong, calloused, firm, fingers through his unwashed, oily, matted, hair...".

They have environments that are just backgrounds in a cheap movie - not good or substantial enough to tolerate the characters interacting in any way. The camera can't move or you'll notice it's a cheap matte. It completely puts the reader outside of the story because it forces a third-person perspective no matter how it's written.

You set a stage in a given environment, then notice how your characters would interact in that environment. The sun and the rocks are just as much characters as Remy is because they have impact on the story. And you do it without a thesaurus and a crippling need to prove how smart you are to the reader.

I loved and ill shut up now.