Well, in defense of both my voting and my writing, which I appreciate the criticism on because truthfully I would not have rated mine the highest out of all the entries if given the choice to rate my own work nor would I have rate Estoks travesty anywhere but close to the top.

As far as the camera direction and thematic style with which my entry utilized was a means to tell whoever was reading that this was indeed an introduction prerendered video and that it was most likely an animation or a game though Estok seems to have read it as a Hollywood mock up. But I'm sure that the old monk would have similar camera actions and thus if it was writen utilizing these directions then it would also be read as a Hollywood theatrical movie or perhaps the writer would create it using foriegn theatrical styles and read it as an intriguing piece due to an anti-hollywood mentality. I believe that newer hollywood movies are created in a templated manner which make the move as a whole, contrite and shallow, though the older style of hollywood was deeper and possed more value and art.

I'll admit that there was not much build up of a story and more should have been added. Such as the viewing of more and more people from the village dieing as they tried to escape and perhaps adding another character in that helped Shai escape from the massacre. The whole point of the Barbarians was to make them morons to show that people without civilization who allow themselves to be consumed by their primal instincts. They could have easily been Roman soldiers, or I could have named them Visigoths. Or even Mongols the very fact that they were just known as Barbarians and wore hollywoodish type clothing was to in fact show that they were the stereotype barbarian. They were also barbarians to show that people in todays society including all nations act with immorality, disrespect, and are uncivilized. The woman is there to show the reaction, my reaction and hopefully your reaction. She is there to symbolize how a mother, one who is supposed to nuture and protect her young, was unable to do so because of these barbarians. The whole point of the revenge theme was to allude to the comming storm. The point at which those barbarians in the world and society will face the mother the care taker of the children which they had killed which was not directly said. I did not say they killed the children you don't actually envision them dieing. The spear is thrown symbolizing the words and beliefs of the Barbarians and they are aimed at the children the young who are corrupted by it, corrupted by the immoral barbarians.

The words were not very intriqing but plain and simple and there was very little setting in the piece save for a simple town this should have said something about the symbolism intended. Where is this town is the town a metaphor is it a symbol for something else the writer intended. Unlike the Graduation story which was almost able to promote its symbolism though appeared unsure as to what the writer was actually trying to symbolize with the uniform and the storm the correlation between the two is left unclear in the piece. The era of my story was set by the tatched roofs and the unskillfully made trappings of the barbarians as well as the bareback riders. The glass was also an indicator as to what type of advancements that those in the village had. It shows that the soceity had some technology some luxury. Though the use of glass with Thatched roofs could be considered an inconsitency and 'thatched' should be changed to just 'roofs'. I used thatched roofs as a means to show that the town was quickly on fire rather and that it was frail along with the glass. And the adjective 'comfortable' is used to say that they were content until the barbarians disturbed their peace.

The ending was to be direction as would appear on an ad or a narrators script a voice after the introduction movie prompting the viewer to get ready to enter the story not merily just watch it. Though it could have been and probably should have been writen closer in rhythm to the rest of the piece. The point is there was a deeper meaning if that is all that you are interested in Estok not just the fact that it is a game and wouldn't it be fun to be a woman seeking the restitution for her childrens untimely demise by mere morons. Aren't their times when you yourself want revenge or a quick means to show that you were right that you should have been exalted. How about if you've lost a family member to a disease and there was nothing that you could do. Or if someone killed your brother or sister because they had no morals and no heart within them they acted as barbarians.

About the old monk. When I read it I am afraid I was lost most of the way through the first time through that is. I did immediately understand that there was some depth to it and the author was trying to potray something whether it was able to be figured out without knowing the authors mind I have no idea. The style with which it was writen was adominable for english. You cannot mix Japanese sentence structure with english sentence structure and if your going to attempt to write it in english using a Japanese sentance structure you should avoid writing it in English altogether. Sure it made it deeper than it really was and clouded things with mystery rather than state what was going on but I doubt that if I understood Japanese that it would be as confusing or as poetic and probably would be nothing more than a small immature story. There was a pompous attitude as if the author was taunting the reader to figure out what they were talking about.

Who was the monk how do we know who he is?
Is he a symbol of something?
Who is the traveler?
Is the traveler the monk?
How old is this old monk?
What ripples, of water, of time?
Waves and ash, is something burning?
What is "a maiden of the strings" it sounds like an ametuer attempt at shakespeare? Thou hast claimed to know the language thou hast used to scribe?

The use of the word deduced with the simplicity of what was said before adds a feeling the author is trying very hard to make this sound mature.
Is that third person speech? Used much in Tarzan and Jane the me speech?
Hmmm meditation he was listening to the rain under an eave? hmmm an eave oh yes the architectural term for the projection part of a roof that over hangs the side of a building.
Is the old monk talking to himself oo a monologue of what remained of a temple well there must have been a roof left is there was an eave thus it did not colapse hmmm what type of structure is it if its in ruins yet still has enough roof standing to create a dry spot in the rain large enough for the monk to stand and rest something under or is he sitting I can't tell?
Wait "two notes of contact six feet apart." hmmm riddles, yay theres going to be puzzles in the game. Ok 'notes' goes along with the sound theme hmmmm six feet apart ok lets see a and g ah hmmmm what does it means?
See see it was a string music yuppy theres going to be music in the game?
Oh the old monk is talking in the third person again like Tarzan he can't form coherient English sentences no subject missing verbs?
Oh the old man is fifty years old damn who wants to play as such an old guy how much fun is this game going to be?
Wait he has yet to meet one step so he's never moved never walked hmmm or is it a pronoun for the "sounds of the world" or perhaps the 'bell' maybe the author will say later on. OK so he's never met a bell and its in the courtyard. The courtyard of what is this a village a town a city. Ah the temple was burned oh so he's a monk who never walked standing under an Eave thats still there after the temple was burnt and a bell was burried underneath. Ok whats 'maiden of the string'. Oh the bell moans its alive its alive is the monk hearing it or are we hearing it? Is the monk talking to himself or to us why is he using thrid person speech? What "peace and [the] echo [are] transient and illusive" or should that be were or is should I add them or should the author does it make things easier to understand or harder? Journey what journey the old monk who never moved is going on a journey at fifty oh and the journey is transient and illusive or was that the bell moaning I don't know does the author know has he decided or is he letting me decide? Oh wait he said its 'too' difficult wait its 'also' difficult well what else is difficult oh I think he means too as in emphasis more than enough?
She? Who is she? Wait oh yes the "maiden of the strings" or has the author forgetten about her does he know who she is? Was she a character, I thought she was a character I thought she talked to the old monk? Wait she talked oh she was the echo of the bell that was "tansient and illusive" but I thought the sound was an illusion and wasn't really there? So there must be no maiden I thought there was, sadness? Wait a flower blossoming in the mist what mist its raining isn't it and fragrance ooo I'm going to be smelling flowers in the game? Or perhaps I will be able to create a new world, but I'm gonna be a fifty year old monk? Cherry Flower I don't want to be a cherry flower yuck oh I get it it is a poem well what does this have to do with a game am I going to write poetry in the game well that sounds lame? "Delicate touches" wait she is a character this "maiden of the string" what fabrics and their smooth beneath the silk hmmm silk is that the fabric is the maiden undressing hmm charred mist didn't know it was possible to have charred mist? So poetry was created in the charred ruins of a temple with a monk meditating under a still standing eave that he can hear but after he is distrubed from listening to the rain by "a maiden of the strings" who isn't really a character and he can smell cherry blossoms or is that just another transient illusion?

Ok the poem which is different than the one at the end:

"Thirteen flowers came before the rain;
one fell, twelve remained;
the fragrance of the flowers filled the wind,
as the thrivings blessed the fallen kin."

ok so before the rain that the monk is standing or sitting; meditating whatever in there were Thirteen flowers ok thirteen versus to the cheery blossom poems or what. One fell ok how can a flower fall flowers don't fall they wilt or are cut, "twelve remained" semicolon looks like code. perhaps its a function? Ok so there is twelve left twelve flowers or versus or poems or whatever and their "fragrance filled the wind" hmmmm the poems were very influential but one fell. Oh and in these poems they 'blessed' the one that fell?

The strings he's talking about maiden again? Please tell us who she is? Is she the bell? Was she even there? The echo hmmm the echo of the bell that is "transient and illusive"? Well it couldn't have been that transient and illsuive if the sound of the echo made the rain become distant or did the rain pass on was it transient?

The voices what? I think there should be a comma there or even a semicolon? The string have a voice so there is a maiden what is her name? She cannot sing for this bell is the bell a nobleman and she is unable to sing why would a maiden of the 'strings' sing I thought she could play some sort of instrument that has strings? Hmmm strings was I think he means strings were or keeping it in the present tense "The twelve strings [are] singing for their missing kin" So somebody is playing a twelve string guitar hmmm where does the thirteen come from. Oh wait I forgot about Life into the speechless does this mean that life and speech are the same thing where is the verb ah breathing hmmm awkward there should be an 'are' in there or a were or a has been or will be to determine what time period the monk is talking about? Oh so the old monk is monologing again this time he no speak in third person no more oops maybe he still is?

Yup more third person and he pats himself on the back too what a very pridefull monk much like the author. Hmmm 'discerning' present tense hmmm insteresting, "Beautiful Stars Better See!", shouldn't that be past tense discerned he discerned. Hmmm resonance of twelved strings couldn't hide a missing string hmmmm well I think that if they were playing with 15 octaves there could be another string but there were thirteen of them what happened to the other two? Or perhaps this fiftenth is another illusion?

Wait japanese in an English writing oh that means that its supposed to be a japanese person oh why is it in English is it a bubbed or translated poem or something well why couldn't they use English sentences? Youngest voice ok that means the high string was missing? Whose young voice who is the thritenth string to this 12 string guitar or perhaps its an indian guitar oh wait no its japanese hmmm maybe the author just doesn't care?

The wind now has the fragrance but this time its of yearning? Wait I'm going to be playing the Maiden who is she though? Is she playing for the monk? They wish to "rejoice with the kin" not "with their kin" oh well after all they are just strings on some wierd guitar that won't let a thirteenth join them. Ah the monk speaks again still in third person at least that is consistent and the monk is a dolt who speaks to themselve in the third person or is it a movie where he is speaking to us the reader or wait the game yes the game I forgot about the game. Well what does the maiden and the monk and the shadows the maiden has have to do with the game am I going to be the shadows. This is more like an ending than an introduction!

If the maiden rested the strings then how can a clap of thunder break through whats already silenced. Did it break through the silence? Oh so the maiden was there and she was sitting so she isn't an illusion am I going to get to play her does the Monk have to bring her back? A thunder trembled under his hand hmmm static eletricity in a damp enviroment with the mist interesting. Hmm swirling flags I didn't know flags could swirl perhaps he meant waving or maybe that rippling oh the ripples was of flags? Well their horses with no riders and flags magically swirling around these temple ruins. Ok the cracked tiles were shattering beneath the feet hmmm of men or horses what kind of tiles are these must be a japanese tile but I don't think they were meant to shatter when you walk on them it had to be the hooves of the horses. And the riders stomped across the courtyard hmmm they must be angry like little children who stomp off when they don't get their way! Where who is who is he talking about the Monk doesn't know anything about anybody but the maiden they hmmm nope I don't know anything about a they all I know is the monk the maiden and twelve poems and the bell. Is he talking about the bell maybe but he said they. A halberd roaring what is he doing with the halberd is he chopping off the monks head is the monk dead. No he isn't dead he's bowing to them and the man called him blind. Hissing of a bow oh no the monk is gonna die he must be shot bows don't hiss arrows hiss. Oh another clap and this time its a command and the riderless horse depart. You hear the bell sounds is that bell moaning again. The monk is still alive I can't believe it how did he evade the arrow! Good thing those swirling flags went away and they disperse like they came from all over and not any one direction oh and now the poem changes. Instead of it talking about tweleve poems that spoke of a lost poem its talking about the lost poem being the only one and the other are missing and still the fragrance upon the wind?

Sorry I don't see a game there what is the monk supposed to do. Does he have a quest does he have a character. Is he sad or is he a symbol of something else is he a metaphor? There really is no game for the old monk and what about the maiden the soldiers didn't see her or say "A blind monk [and a beautiful maiden], captian" This entry isn't even an introduction its an ending. It burries the readers sense of wonder then the soldiers leave all that transpires between the sounds and the monk while he is meditating means nothing at the end. it gives no allusion to any fallen conrads whatsoever and the only reason I say that is because Estok said that is what the twelve strings, poems, or influences are suposed to be. The storm has already come and it is over there is nothing left for the monk to do. He just travels and speaks in the third person. His words are trite and shallow as if he was a baby or a cave man. Perhaps it would be better translated into Japanese but I don't see the point of reading it in english if it was meant to be writen in Japanese. It is a travesty to my ears and my mind to read!

I voted the Prison entry my first chioce because I like the idea that it represented for a game that I would most likely play it sounded intriquing. But to each his own I guess. Even though you tore my piece down Estok and your words were quiet sharp like the spears of the barbarians I do not take offense and forgive you. I will learn from some of your more applicable criticisms. I hope that you have the wisedom to see your own faults that I hope I covered completely.

Re: Camera

Quote:As far as the camera direction and thematic style with which my entry utilized was a means to tell whoever was reading that this was indeed an introduction prerendered video and that it was most likely an animation or a game though Estok seems to have read it as a Hollywood mock up. But I'm sure that the old monk would have similar camera actions

You are correct that there will be camera actions. The act of writing is to induce the camera actions without saying the word 'camera'. For example, when I wrote:

In the sound of the rain, came a set of quiet ripples--footsteps of a traveler, light and calm; crests of the waves, casting aside a thin layer of new ash. Cracks of the tiles did not make a sound under the gentle steps.

It is obvious that the camera is zoomed in onto the cracked tiles, with an angle showing the ripples caused by the footsteps on the layer of rain water slowly pushing away the ash, like a caring hand tending wounds gently. This is an symbol signifying that the footsteps belonged to a traveller with good intention--a peacemaker, and a woman, a young woman, because a man can't walk like that, and the traveller was not in a hurry, otherwise, you would hear splashes instead of the compressions of the ash on the ripples. There will be more explanation as I will try to tell you that what you considered to be symbols in your piece are very weak symbols. What you are attempting to defend is a losing battle.

Your are incorrect that:

Quote:and thus if it was writen utilizing these directions then it would also be read as a Hollywood theatrical movie or perhaps the writer would create it using foriegn theatrical styles and read it as an intriguing piece due to an anti-hollywood mentality.

Hollywood is a label for a style. Both pieces showed the use of camera, but not the same style. In your case, you are just filming the actual scene. In my case, I am filming sound--visualized sound. The monk is blind. What you see is not the actual scene, but the monk's interpretation of what he was hearing. That is why the narration didn't describe any color, or anything that can't be deduced from it sound. This usage of the camera, already put the piece above Hollywood level.


Re: Story Depth

Quote:I'll admit that there was not much build up of a story and more should have been added. Such as the viewing of more and more people from the village dieing as they tried to escape and perhaps adding another character in that helped Shai escape from the massacre.

I don't think you understand the situation. You can't hammer emotion into the viewers. The reason that your entry was bad, was that your presentation was one dimensional: "You see how these barbarians are bad? you should feel angry too! If this is not enough, I am going to show you more scenes to convince you that the barbarians are bad and that you should connect with the victim. And you are just going to accept it because it is all I show you."

This is propaganda. Viewers simply don't like being forced to accept a perspective. It is annoying when the author leaves no room for the viewer to decide. It makes very bad semantic arguments.

Quote:The whole point of the Barbarians was to make them morons to show that people without civilization who allow themselves to be consumed by their primal instincts.

The semantic of a writing is important. It is not a matter of having it or not, but whether it is deep and insightful, and whether the writing presents it artfully. I don't think what you consider to be the 'point' of the writing a legitimate semantic cause. If you believe that this should be the point of your piece, than the whole writing is just a big duh--'who doesn't know that barbarians are barbarians because they behave like barbarians?'. So your whole story had just said nothing. Nothing interesting for the viewers to discover, to learn, to understand. By definition, it makes your piece worthless.

Quote:They were also barbarians to show that people in todays society including all nations act with immorality, disrespect, and are uncivilized.

This is not in your piece. If you dressed the attackers in uniforms, who fight like barbarians, then you would make this point, but you didn't. For example, you can make a scene in which officials in the Red Cross is doing something questionable. Then you have a point.

Quote:The woman is there to show the reaction, my reaction and hopefully your reaction. She is there to symbolize how a mother, one who is supposed to nuture and protect her young, was unable to do so because of these barbarians.

You are misusing the word 'symbolize'. The mother is not a symbol of a mother, she IS a mother. You are correct that her role in the scene is to present a viewpoint involved in the situation. TO be accurate, you should say that, you introduced the mother in the scene to anchor a viewpoint hoping that the viewer will identify with her point of view. But this is bad presentation. You can't induce a viewpoint in the viewer by simply displaying a viewpoint. On top of that, the viewpoint isn't particularly interesting semantically. All you did was presenting a victim. It is a very easy task, and a very meaningless task by itself. Fiction isn't like reallife. You can't just show a victim and expect the viewer to identify, because the viewer knew that it is made up. And they are going to say, "The way you are trying to convince me is just low.You thought that emotion is contagious, that just because someone is crying on the screen, I am going to cry too."

To convey emotion, you can't use the thematics alone. You need a lot of semantics supports. For example, a scene of D-Day is influential because it conveys an understanding of the meaning of sacrificing so many lives to protect a shared dream, the understanding that none of them involved may see their dream, but have the will to sacrifice so that someone else can have their dreams. This makes the situation emotional not because of the suffering, but because of the meaning behind it.

Sacrifice is a choice. Not an imposed situation. In your entry, the woman was just a reaction to a cause, nothing different from any other villager who tried to pick up the weapons. This made the entry semantically bankrupt. If you would have presented it in a way such that other villagers were actually submissive, then you would be making a better point.



The whole point of the revenge theme was to allude to the comming storm. The point at which those barbarians in the world and society will face the mother the care taker of the children which they had killed which was not directly said. I did not say they killed the children you don't actually envision them dieing. The spear is thrown symbolizing the words and beliefs of the Barbarians and they are aimed at the children the young who are corrupted by it, corrupted by the immoral barbarians. But it is still shallow because it made the woman a direct victim of the situation, so her motivation became a little selfish.

Quote:The words were not very intriqing but plain and simple and there was very little setting in the piece save for a simple town this should have said something about the symbolism intended. Where is this town is the town a metaphor is it a symbol for something else the writer intended.

You can't meta-argue the symbolism of an entry. Symbolisms aren't 'what if's. They are rooted in the writing and explained by the writing. For example, if I just come and say, the old monk of my entry actually symbolizes my uncle. You are going to say, "So? How the hell does that relate to the story? And who cares?" Meta-symbolism is a very weak argument. For the plain and simple text you used, I can only attribute that to your misblief that you can just hypnotize the viewer into adopting your viewpoint.

Quote:The era of my story was set by the tatched roofs and the unskillfully made trappings of the barbarians as well as the bareback riders. The glass was also an indicator as to what type of advancements that those in the village had. It shows that the soceity had some technology some luxury. Though the use of glass with Thatched roofs could be considered an inconsitency and 'thatched' should be changed to just 'roofs'. I used thatched roofs as a means to show that the town was quickly on fire rather and that it was frail along with the glass. And the adjective 'comfortable' is used to say that they were content until the barbarians disturbed their peace.

These aren't symbols. These are just description. Think about it. If your descriptions didn't match the setting, then your piece won't be accused to be lacking symbols, but to be nonsense. Symbols are representations of meaning, not indications of the settings. The things you listed here aren't symbols. And the use of the adjective 'comfortable' was a violation of the 'show, don't tell' rule. For example, if you began the story with a young boy deciding to apologize to a young girl, and then the raiders came, then it would be a better way to convey that life was comfortable before the raid. You can't convince the viewers that the raiders had taken something away from the village when you never showed that the village had it. You can end the scene with the boy holding a charm from the girl, that she loved him too, but never had a chance to say it. Some years passed, and we see a young warrior with a charm wrapped around his sword. It is not that good, but still better than what you did.

Quote:The ending was to be direction as would appear on an ad or a narrators script a voice after the introduction movie prompting the viewer to get ready to enter the story not merily just watch it.

Actually there is something very wrong with the last paragraph. Since we are talking about that now, I will tell you:

The story of how a ruthless hoard of barbarians created the greatest woman warrior to ever live or will she just be left as a mourning bitter woman whose life was extinguished with the lose of her children. 

This is bs. This is false advertisement. Why? You apparently presented two options, but one of them doesn't exist. I doubt that there is gameplay if the player decide to be a bitter woman. This is bad advertising because you have unskillfully exposed the linearlity that you tried to hide. You tried to convince the player that there is a big decision to make, but you told the player at the same time there is really no decision to make. That makes this sentence bs, rendering the next sentence like a lie:

This story has yet no ending. You now are the story writer, what path will you direct Shai's feet to take and where will she end up?

Did you just say that she will have to become the greatest warrior? How is it that I am choosing her path?

Quote:Though it could have been and probably should have been writen closer in rhythm to the rest of the piece. The point is there was a deeper meaning

I don't see the deeper meaning. I am provoking you to defend what you have. In my opinion you can't defend it. There is nothing to defend. This why some other people would rather shut up, becaue they have learned that they can't get pass me if they try to defend something that doesn't exist. Is it that difficult to accept that there was nothing there and move on?

Quote:if that is all that you are interested in Estok not just the fact that it is a game and wouldn't it be fun to be a woman seeking the restitution for her childrens untimely demise by mere morons. Aren't their times when you yourself want revenge or a quick means to show that you were right that you should have been exalted. How about if you've lost a family member to a disease and there was nothing that you could do. Or if someone killed your brother or sister because they had no morals and no heart within them they acted as barbarians.

These kinds of arguments are really bad arguments. You are just saying, "I felt that, so should you." You are relying on the viewer's intrinsic connection to make an argument. This argument isn't effective because you didn't really make an effort to connect with the viewer. In a work of fiction, such constructs reeks of coercion, a weak attempt to get a point across with insufficient establishment.

Re: Entry 6
I don't know why it was refered to as 'old monk'. Wasn't it clear that the monk wasn't the PC? I mean, which character is more interesting: a blind old monk walk around trying to find peace but doing nothing, or a ghostly figure that can disappear in thin air that was actively trying to bring peace by getting entangled with an army?

Quote:The style with which it was writen was adominable for english. You cannot mix Japanese sentence structure with english sentence structure and if your going to attempt to write it in english using a Japanese sentance structure you should avoid writing it in English altogether.

I disagree that it made the English adominable. The English itself was good, but on top of that there is an uncommon flow, that you can enjoy without knowing that it was based on Japanese. If you know Japanese, then you know where the flow came from. Otherwise, you will understand at least that the characters weren't speaking in modern English, and the flow sets a reflective, meditative tempo. It is almost like breathing with the sentences.

Quote:Sure it made it deeper than it really was and clouded things with mystery rather than state what was going on but I doubt that if I understood Japanese that it would be as confusing or as poetic and probably would be nothing more than a small immature story.

You have to understand that the first layer of the meaning of the story did not rely on the implications. But the more you dive into it the more you get out of it. It is a challenge from the author.

Quote:There was a pompous attitude as if the author was taunting the reader to figure out what they were talking about.

I guess you can feel humiliated if you can't get pass it. However you are correct that I am teasing the reader: "If you don't think that you can be handle this, maybe you are too young to read something like this. Take a hike, and come back a few years later." It is not the job of the writer to entertain reader of all levels. I guess it gives the reader a vivid disclaimer that "This is not for kids." Sometimes readers dig that and appreciate the fact that writing had not been diluted to suit other audiences. You can call this an attitude, I see it as integrity.

Re: Entry 6 FAQ

Who was the monk how do we know who he is?
The monk is a pilgrim who had travelled for fifty years. You know this when he said he had heard everything in the world, but not the sound of peace in fifty years:

"Sounds of the world, old monk have heard enough; except the peace of an echoingbell. Footsteps of fifty years, yet to meet one."

It is not important who the monk is. The monk is just a character that introduces the main character, although the entry descibed who the monk was and used his character to introduce the main character.

Is he a symbol of something?
The monk is a symbol of a passive believer of peace. He walked across the land, trying to find a place that is still peaceful. He wishes that thing will become better, but is not doing anything to make it better. You get this implication from his desire to meet a bell, not to create one.

Who is the traveler?
The traveler is the 'maiden'. Are you asking for something else?

Is the traveler the monk?
The 'traveler' is not the monk. The first sentence said a monk was listening to the rain. The second paragraph followed logically to describe what the monk was hearing. In the sound of the rain, the monk heard a set of footsteps. So the 'traveler' is not the monk. The monk heard the 'traveler' coming.

How old is this old monk?
At least 50. The monk mentioned that he had been on pilgrimage for 50 years. His exact age is not important. You can assume that he is 60 or 70.

What ripples, of water, of time?
Rippers of water caused by the footsteps of the traveler walking on the tiles. In the rain, there is a thin layer of water on tiles. As the traveler walked on it, the contacts created ripples. In order to understand the order of this sentence, you need to know that the monk was deducing the situation. The monk didn't hear the footsteps directly, he heard the ripples. From the ripplies, he deduced that someone was coming.

In the sound of the rain, came a set of quiet ripples--footsteps of a traveler, light and calm;

The second half of the sentence (after the semicolon) explained what exactly the monk heard and why he knew that the footsteps were light and calm:

crests of the waves, casting aside a thin layer of new ash. Cracks of the tiles did not make a sound under the gentle steps.

In other words, he was able to hear it because he heard the raindrops on the layer of ash compressed by the waves. A raindrop on clear water doesn't sound the same as a raindrop on ash and debris. The monk heard the changing terrain as the rain hit, and thought someone was coming. Pretty extraoridinary sensory, I guess you need to be a blind meditator for more than 50 years to attain this ability. Or the monk may be a daredevil.

Waves and ash, is something burning?
The entry didn't say that anything was burning at the moment, but something had been burnt. The piece only explicitly identified one thing that was burnt, and it was the structure that held the temple bell.

What is "a maiden of the strings" it sounds like an ametuer attempt at shakespeare? Thou hast claimed to know the language thou hast used to scribe?
If it was a direction translation, it would have been "strings' maiden". It refers to a koto player that is also a young female. Koto is the dominant representation of string instruments. Someone that plays the strings means someone who plays the Koto. I didn't use the word Koto here because 'maiden of the strings' can also be interpreted as a puppet master. And a puppet master was a more accurate description of what the maiden was. So the monk was incorrectly correct.

The use of the word deduced with the simplicity of what was said before adds a feeling the author is trying very hard to make this sound mature.
I don't think I tried very hard. The theme is illusion. It is completely logical that the piece took the direction to describe perception and its interpretation. If I just picked any theme and made riddles out of it, then your argument would be true. But the theme here IS illusion. To engage the reader to experience illusion in the fabric of the presentation itself, was a very appropriate choice.

Is that third person speech? Used much in Tarzan and Jane the me speech?
Yes, it is third person speech that is how people talked. The words "I" and "you" weren't always consider to be completely polite. The idea is this: If you see me as a maiden, then I am a maiden; if you see me as an old monk, then I am an old monk. There was no emphasis on intrinsic individuality. I am what you see I am, and I am happy with that. This was a cultural thing.

Hmmm meditation he was listening to the rain under an eave? hmmm an eave oh yes the architectural term for the projection part of a roof that over hangs the side of a building.
Yes, eave.

Is the old monk talking to himself oo a monologue of what remained of a temple well there must have been a roof left is there was an eave thus it did not colapse hmmm what type of structure is it if its in ruins yet still has enough roof standing to create a dry spot in the rain large enough for the monk to stand and rest something under or is he sitting I can't tell?
A Japanese temple ground is a courtyard with multiple small buildings, sometimes divided by walls with a gate with a small roof. Just because it is a ruin doesn't mean that everything is leveled. The piece never told you how many buildings of the temple collapsed. Since the buildings weren't physically attached, when one of them was burnt didn't imply that everything was on fire. The entry said that the eave near a section of a wall that had been partly destroyed. The monk isn't talking to himself. There were two people.

Wait "two notes of contact six feet apart." hmmm riddles, yay theres going to be puzzles in the game. Ok 'notes' goes along with the sound theme hmmmm six feet apart ok lets see a and g ah hmmmm what does it means?
The monk was blind. He couldn't tell what package the traveler was carrying unless there was an audible clue. When the traveler set down the package against the wall, the package made two points of contact. The two sources of the sound was six feet apart. So the package was six feet long. The length itself wasn't enough to tell what the package is, but the tone, or the 'note' of the contact gave the monk clues about the material and weight of the package. The monk used these clues to deduce that the traveller was carring a koto--a specific string instrument that was six feet long, wooden, and not heavy.

You are correct that the game will have riddles. But this is not one of them. The piece told you that the sound was from the package that the traveler was carrying, and the traveler unpacked later on to show you that it was indeed a koto.

See see it was a string music yuppy theres going to be music in the game?
Yes, there is going to be music in the game. And not just background music. Music and sound play substantial roles in both gameplay and story.

Oh the old monk is talking in the third person again like Tarzan he can't form coherient English sentences no subject missing verbs?
If the old monk spoke the way English is spoken, it would be impolite, and the dialogues would be out-of-character for the specific era.

Oh the old man is fifty years old damn who wants to play as such an old guy how much fun is this game going to be?
No one said that the game was about the old monk. It was about the thirteen people in the song. And the maiden was one of them.


Wait he has yet to meet one step so he's never moved never walked hmmm or is it a pronoun for the "sounds of the world" or perhaps the 'bell' maybe the author will say later on.
Your comprehension is terrible. The old monk said he had heard enough of a lot of sounds, but would like to hear a peaceful bell. Then he said, in fifty years, he had not met one. This completely meant that he hadn't met a bell in peace. The writing logically directed the attention to the fallen bell in the courtyard. The bell in the courtyard was moaning.

OK so he's never met a bell and its in the courtyard. The courtyard of what is this a village a town a city.
He never met a bell in peace, the bell in the courtyward was in pain. The courtyard was the temple's courtyard. A Japanese temple doesn't refer to a single building. A temple is really a courtyard with some separate building on it. The whole area is considered the temple.

Ah the temple was burned oh so he's a monk who never walked standing under an Eave thats still there after the temple was burnt and a bell was burried underneath.
You are completely wrong here. The entry never said that the temple was burned. We only know that the structure holding the bell was burned. The structure that held the bell wasn't a temple. It was a separate structure in the courtyard. A Japanese temple isn't like a church. The monk can walk. He had been traveling for 50 years. The monk had came to the temple to take refuge from the rain, just like the maiden. They were both travelers. And they seemingly met for the same reason--to take refuge.

Ok whats 'maiden of the strings'.
Literally, a young female koto player.

Oh the bell moans its alive its alive is the monk hearing it or are we hearing it?
The bell moans because of the wind. When the wind swept across its hollow opening, the bell resonantes in low frequency (because it is big). And low frequency sounds like moaning literally. You know that the wind is causing it because I wrote:

The hollow artifact moaned in the slanted rain.

Rain is slanted because there was wind.

Is the monk talking to himself or to us why is he using thrid person speech?
The monk was talking to the maiden. Third person was used because it was the actual colloquial form of the era. For example, if I said, "does 5mingaming understand?" in Japanese, then it meant, "Do you understand?" in English. It is understood because in such situation, it was obvious that the speaker was talking to the listener that was present. It wasn't a translation error, because Japanese has the word "you" also. It was the colloquial custom to not use pronoun but the last name of the person. In the cases where you don't know the last names, you use the occupation. In this particular case, monks don't go by names at all. They pretty much consider themselves identityless. The notion of individualism isn't always cherished in all cultures. Is it that hard to understand why they didn't use first and second person pronouns?


What "peace and [the] echo [are] transient and illusive" or should that be were or is should I add them or should the author does it make things easier to understand or harder?
This line was one of the most Japanese sounding lines. I didn't change a bit of it because it was poetic even in English. Technically, you can't misunderstand the meaning of this line. The four words are equivalent:

Peace is transient and illusive, just as
an echo is transient and illusive.

There was no point to add any verb to it to describe their relationships. They were all equivalent.

Journey what journey the old monk who never moved is going on a journey at fifty oh and the journey is transient and illusive or was that the bell moaning I don't know does the author know has he decided or is he letting me decide?
The monk is a pilgrim, who had been traveling for fifty years. He said that the reason he traveled was to find peace. The maiden told him that peace was illusive and that his pilgrimage might be too difficult.

Oh wait he said its 'too' difficult wait its 'also' difficult well what else is difficult oh I think he means too as in emphasis more than enough?
A pilgrimage is a personal training to achieve spirituality. That itself is already a difficult task because it takes a lot of thoughts, reflections, philosophical understanding. It is a difficult task to truely understand what peace is. To find an echo of peace means to find the peace that he understood manifests itself in the real world. In other words, the monk is in a journey to understand peace, to find the manifestation of peace in the real world. The maiden said, "It is difficult to believe that peace can exist in a time of chaos like this. To find the manifestation of peace is even more difficult."

She? Who is she? Wait oh yes the "maiden of the strings" or has the author forgetten about her does he know who she is?
'She' is the maiden. You are disappointing. It is often said that you need to judge your work by the standards of tomorrow. The entry wasn't that convoluted.

Was she a character, I thought she was a character I thought she talked to the old monk? Wait she talked oh she was the echo of the bell that was "tansient and illusive"
She was a character and she was talking to the old monk. She was also the echo of a bell, and she was transient and illusive.

but I thought the sound was an illusion and wasn't really there? So there must be no maiden I thought there was, sadness?
You are correct, there was no maiden physically there. But the entry hasn't told you that up to this point. To the viewer, it was a perfectly normal conversation.

Wait a flower blossoming in the mist what mist its raining isn't it and fragrance ooo I'm going to be smelling flowers in the game?
New ash, remember? Something was burned not long ago, there was still ash nearby. Mixed with the rain and probably some fire that wasn't completely out, the ash and remaining smoke gave a charred smell. When the maiden opened the package, there was the smell of the wood, and the imagery of the song that expelled the charred smell. All sensories are part of the game. I was trying to see whether TechnoGoth would eat his word on the irrelevance of the technology used in the game. He didn't say a word about it, so the trap has not been stepped on. For the sake of actual implementation the smell is just an imagery.

Or perhaps I will be able to create a new world, but I'm gonna be a fifty year old monk? Cherry Flower I don't want to be a cherry flower yuck oh I get it it is a poem well what does this have to do with a game am I going to write poetry in the game well that sounds lame?
There will be poems in the game. Poetry is a very common thing in that era. People conversed in verses. So you are not going to be bored even reading the dialogues of the game, given that you are 'tuned in'. While writing poetry is not part of the game, poems serve as a major medium that will convey the story, especially the emotions of the characters and the side stories. This is a design objective. You are correct that this will not be the only poem in the story.

Cherry flower is the standard symbol of a samurai. It symbolized samurai because cherry flowers would fall when they were still fully bloomed, similar to how a samurai believes how a warrior should die in battle.

This is the first hint that the maiden is some kind of warrior.

"Delicate touches" wait she is a character this "maiden of the string" what fabrics and their smooth beneath the silk hmmm silk is that the fabric is the maiden undressing hmm charred mist didn't know it was possible to have charred mist?
Charred mist is the smoke and ash mixed with the rain. The maiden was unpacking the koto. And the Koto was wrapped in silk. Silk is a water-resistant material. It would be expensive to use silk to wrap a six-foot tall package. This gave the monk the clue that the maiden was a daughter of a noble. You are correct that I wanted you to think that maybe the maiden was undressing. It was an appropriate analogy because as you will find out, the song was about her. So the maiden was, figuratively, disclosing herself to the monk.

So poetry was created in the charred ruins of a temple with a monk meditating under a still standing eave that he can hear but after he is distrubed from listening to the rain by "a maiden of the strings" who isn't really a character and he can smell cherry blossoms or is that just another transient illusion?
Two people met under an eave to take refuge from the rain. One was a monk, one was a koto player. The two had a little chat, and the koto player started playing a song. The smell of cherry blossom was real and was an imagery. Technically the smell of a koto would be kiri. But it was the smell of what the maiden played that count. The song spoke of a fragrance.


Ok the poem which is different than the one at the end:

"Thirteen flowers came before the rain;
one fell, twelve remained;
the fragrance of the flowers filled the wind,
as the thrivings blessed the fallen kin."

ok so before the rain that the monk is standing or sitting; meditating whatever in there were Thirteen flowers ok thirteen versus to the cheery blossom poems or what. One fell ok how can a flower fall flowers don't fall they wilt or are cut, "twelve remained" semicolon looks like code. perhaps its a function? Ok so there is twelve left twelve flowers or versus or poems or whatever and their "fragrance filled the wind" hmmmm the poems were very influential but one fell. Oh and in these poems they 'blessed' the one that fell?
First of all, it was the traveler, the maiden, the koto player who made the poem. This was the song sang by the girl. You are observant that flowers don't just fall. But flowers do fall if it is raining really hard. However, cherry flowers fall before they wither, and they were grown pretty high up on trees. Cherry flower isn't the kind of flower you pick from a bush. They are up in the wind. I am not sure what you are complaining about the semicolon. The semicolon after 'twelve remained' was used because the meaning of the situation was yet to come. It wasn't finished yet, therefore a semicolon.

The superficial meaning of the song was:
There were still twelve flowers left although one of them fell. It can be sad to see the fallen flower, but we should also celebrate for those survived. In other words, don't just look at the bad side, there is still much hope and opportunity.

The strings he's talking about maiden again? Please tell us who she is? Is she the bell? Was she even there? The echo hmmm the echo of the bell that is "transient and illusive"?
You are getting a little ahead. But the literal presentation so far tells you that the madien was a koto player. And a koto is a string instrument. When she played the song, the sound of the song was echoed by the bell in the courtyard.

Well it couldn't have been that transient and illsuive if the sound of the echo made the rain become distant or did the rain pass on was it transient?
This actually meant the attention that the old monk gave the song. Whe you concentrate on listening to one thing, the sound of other things seemed not as noticeable. It simply meant that the monk was paying attention. The imagery itself convey the situation where the song of the maiden seemingly pacified the rain.

The voices what? I think there should be a comma there or even a semicolon? The string have a voice so there is a maiden what is her name?
The voices of the strings. There are two ways to understand this. Due to what comes next, you can interpret that the poem you read was actually not spoken. It was the monk's interpretation of the piece of music (i.e. the maiden didn't sing, she only played the koto). Or you can believe that the maiden sang. Both interpretation would work.

Each string has a voice. It is a personification. We don't know the maiden's name.

She cannot sing for this bell is the bell a nobleman and she is unable to sing why would a maiden of the 'strings' sing I thought she could play some sort of instrument that has strings?
Koto playing is often accompanied by singing. So a koto player can also sing while playing the song. The song was echoed by the bell in the courtyard. In the way the monk interpreted it, the maiden was trying to satisfy the old monk's wish to meet a bell that echoes in peace. Therefore, the maiden played a peaceful song, and intentionally let the sound bounces off the bronze bell, to create an echo. The maiden practically said, "Is this satisfying? I also have some understanding of peace. Would you consider me to be a manifestation of peace?"

The old monk practically said, literally, "No, it is not what I am looking for. Although you created an echo in the bell, the sound echoed was sound made by strings. A bell's sound is different from that. So you can't pretend that the echo was an echo of a bell. So it isn't the sound I am looking for."

Hmmm strings was I think he means strings were or keeping it in the present tense "The twelve strings [are] singing for their missing kin" So somebody is playing a twelve string guitar hmmm where does the thirteen come from.
You are correct that that verb should be 'are'. That was a grammatical mistake. I don't know why you are making assumptions about the instrument. The piece actually explicitly revealed the name of the instrument. If you don't know what it is, you could have just googled it. A koto is a thirteen string instrument. The maiden was playing a koto that only had twelve strings. One of the strings was missing, and that string was called kin. A koto is supposed to have thirteen strings, but the monk could only hear twelve of them. Reflecting on the verses of the song, the monk deduced that the maiden's song was about the missing string, not the bell in the courtyard.

Oh wait I forgot about Life into the speechless does this mean that life and speech are the same thing where is the verb ah breathing hmmm awkward there should be an 'are' in there or a were or a has been or will be to determine what time period the monk is talking about?
That was grammatically correct. The verb cannot be there. After someone played a song, it is customary for the listener to comment on whatever meaning the listener had got from it. The full sentence was:

"I heard voices of the living breathing life into the speechless."

But 'I heard' was implied and redundant. Someone has just played a song, of course you are commenting on what you have heard. So there was no are in that fragment.

Oh so the old monk is monologing again this time he no speak in third person no more oops maybe he still is?
The monk wasn't doing a monologue.

Yup more third person and he pats himself on the back too what a very pridefull monk much like the author. Hmmm 'discerning' present tense hmmm insteresting, "Beautiful Stars Better See!", shouldn't that be past tense discerned he discerned.
There is no monologye. 'Discerning' is an adjective. This is one of the instances with strong Japanese rhythm. An actual Japanese line would go like this:

"Old monk's ears[は] [with a brief pause] truly discerning [ですね='are']"

The reason I kept that was because the pausation was very important. It conveyed a moment of judgement. I gave you a sense that the maiden was speaking very calming and carefully about the monk's interpretation. It was an eerie sense of carefulness, a very careful praise to say that: "You are correct, that I wasn't speaking of the bell. But there is more. Can you find the true meaning?"

Hmmm resonance of twelved strings couldn't hide a missing string hmmmm well I think that if they were playing with 15 octaves there could be another string but there were thirteen of them what happened to the other two? Or perhaps this fiftenth is another illusion?
You seem culturally blind. Why are you interpreting everything in your own reference frame. When the story didn't take place there? For a koto, the thirteen strings correspond to thirteen tuned notes. It was only about three octaves in total. You can tighten or loosen a string on the fly to get the notes in between. So technically, you can play a song designed for thirteen strings with just twelve. But the source of the sound will give it away when one of the position where a string should have been never made a sound. In the resonance of twelve strings, the monk heard nothing from one of the positions on the koto, where a string should have been, although the song did have the note that the missing string would play. Therefore the monk deduced that a string was missing.

Wait japanese in an English writing oh that means that its supposed to be a japanese person oh why is it in English is it a bubbed or translated poem or something well why couldn't they use English sentences? Youngest voice ok that means the high string was missing? Whose young voice who is the thritenth string to this 12 string guitar or perhaps its an indian guitar oh wait no its japanese hmmm maybe the author just doesn't care?
It is hard to translate poems. The Japanese version has its own puns. It is a decision on how much to translate and how much to keep. The tempo from Japanese was kept. The author stated the name of the instrument: Sou no Koto. You are correct that the highest string was missing. The way the strings were arranged, the string with the highest pitch was also closest to the koto player. It was an indirect implication that that string represented the maiden.

The wind now has the fragrance but this time its of yearning?
The song spoke of a missing string. Koto players don't carry a koto around with missing strings, especially when it was so well-cared (wrapped in silk). The string wasn't missing because it hasn't been repaired, it was intentionally left out. Since the string had the youngest voice, and that the maiden was also young, the old monk interpreted that the maiden had intentionally removed the kin string from the koto. In the song, one of the thirteen flowers had fallen. On the koto, one of the thirteen strings was intentionally removed. In the song, the twelve flowers blessed the fallen flower. If that flower represented the maiden, then the maiden wanted the twelve to be blessing her. But the maiden wasn't dead, she left intentionally. She wanted people to believe that she had died, but at the same time wanted those people to be with her. Together, the old monk guessed that the maiden was a runaway daughter of some noble, maybe a little regretful about her decision to run away.

Wait I'm going to be playing the Maiden who is she though?
You don't know who she is. She didn't want you to know who she is neither.

Is she playing for the monk? They wish to "rejoice with the kin" not "with their kin" oh well after all they are just strings on some wierd guitar that won't let a thirteenth join them.
At this moment, it seems that the maiden was simply playing a song to express her yearning in the disguise of comforting the monk. The monk practically said, "You family is probably missing you just as much as you are missing them. You should go back."

The reason that 'the kin' was used should alarm you once again of the third person speech. 'The kin' was a substitute for 'the maiden'. It meant that the old monk said, "I think that the kin represents you. And that you have ran away from home. You regret the decision and hoped that you were back, but you also believed that everything won't be the same, because you couldn't picture yourself to be with the others again. You removed the string that represented you, so that you can live in an illusion of harmony and memories."

The Dr. Phil'ing was implied by the associations.

Ah the monk speaks again still in third person at least that is consistent and the monk is a dolt who speaks to themselve in the third person or is it a movie where he is speaking to us the reader or wait the game yes the game I forgot about the game. Well what does the maiden and the monk and the shadows the maiden has have to do with the game am I going to be the shadows. This is more like an ending than an introduction!
When the maiden said she had nothing but shadows, she referred to the goal of the monk. The monk wanted to find true peace. The maiden tried to create on from illusions. The monk said it wasn't it, and Dr.Phil'ed the maiden instead. So the maiden told the monk that maybe what she believed in wasn't correct, and apologized for deceiving the monk.

You are going to be playing shadows. I don't know what you detected, but you are also correct that this introduction takes place near the end of the story. The game itself would be about the events leading to this moment and the resolution there after.

If the maiden rested the strings then how can a clap of thunder break through whats already silenced. Did it break through the silence?
This is a philosophical line. You are not expected to understand this at the spot. But this is the reason why I said the thunder broken through her voice when it was apparently silent:

The encounter with the maiden was a product of hypnosis. Everything the monk heard with his extraordinary hearing skill--including the sensation of silence--was created by the maiden. So the 'voice' here, corresponded to the session of hypnosis. The session (the maiden't voice) was broken by the thunder.

Oh so the maiden was there and she was sitting so she isn't an illusion am I going to get to play her does the Monk have to bring her back?
As a viewer, you don't know whether the maiden was there at all. That wasn't an important point. The point was that there were layers of illusions created by the maiden.

Logically, the maiden was an intriguing character with some interesting talents. So from the introduction, you can infer that you will be playing the maiden. The monk was a vehicle to introduce the maiden and the story.

A thunder trembled under his hand hmmm static eletricity in a damp enviroment with the mist interesting.
Footsteps of horses sounds literally like thunder when you hear it from the ground. The monk could hear the horse through his arm and whole body. It shakes the ground, and the sound get transmitted through solid pretty rapidly.

Hmm swirling flags I didn't know flags could swirl perhaps he meant waving or maybe that rippling oh the ripples was of flags?
Swirling was the correct word. Think about this:

swirling flags surrounding the temple.

Where is the camera if you can see many flags swirling around a temple? It meant that from the view of the monk's hand, the camera zoomed out directly up to show the horsemen surrounding the monk as if the monk was in the eye of storm.

Well their horses with no riders and flags magically swirling around these temple ruins.
'Heavy horses' meant heavy cavalries. You are correct however that to the monk, there was no evidence that there were riders. The monk was blind. He could hear the footsteps of the horse and knowed that the horses were heavy as if they were armed. He could also hear the whistles of the flags. The conclusion that there were riders would be a deduction.

Ok the cracked tiles were shattering beneath the feet hmmm of men or horses what kind of tiles are these must be a japanese tile but I don't think they were meant to shatter when you walk on them it had to be the hooves of the horses.
It was the hooves. But to the monk, who was blind, didn't really give a damn whose feet it was. The men and their horses sounded like a mythical creature that talked like human but moved like beasts. The monk didn't really give a damn what they were. While he knew that those were horsemen, you have to understand that in his audio vision, the horsemen sounded like monsters.

And the riders stomped across the courtyard hmmm they must be angry like little children who stomp off when they don't get their way! Where who is who is he talking about the Monk doesn't know anything about anybody but the maiden they hmmm nope I don't know anything about a they all I know is the monk the maiden and twelve poems and the bell. Is he talking about the bell maybe but he said they.
Yes, the riders were angry. At this point, the entry had not explicitely gave enough information for the viewer to deduce who "they" were. All we know was that the monk had been talking to a maiden who had suddenly disappeared. Then a group of horsemen showed up looking for a group of people. Maybe the group that the horsemen were looking for also suddenly disappeared, although the horsemen believed that "they" were at the temple.

If the horsemen were looking for one person, then the monk would probably think that they were looking for the maiden. But the horsemen were looking for a group.

Did the monk meet one person or a group of people? Did the horsemen met a group of people or one person?


A halberd roaring what is he doing with the halberd is he chopping off the monks head is the monk dead. No he isn't dead he's bowing to them and the man called him blind. Hissing of a bow oh no the monk is gonna die he must be shot bows don't hiss arrows hiss.
When a horse has been in pursuit is stopped, it doesn't just stand still, it jogs around a little bit. A rider carring a polearm ready to strike holds the weapon sideway. When the horse turns and take steps from the abrupt stop, the rider has to swing the halberd a bit to keep the balance. So while the horse was doing this jogging, the rider wasn't in a stable position and was waving the weapon around.

The wood of a bow hisses when it is fully drawn but before an arrow was released. The monk could hear the tension of the wood in close range.


Oh another clap and this time its a command and the riderless horse depart. You hear the bell sounds is that bell moaning again. The monk is still alive I can't believe it how did he evade the arrow!
You are correct that in the monk's raw perception, the horses were riderless. The monk was listening to the bell in his hand. When the maiden disappeared, she left an item that tinkled. That item was a bell. The monk reached for it and heard thunder beneath. Then the horsemen came. The bell was in the monk's hand.

The monk wasn't killed because the horsemen were standard soldiers (standard soldiers carry flags and have ranks). They had to follow orders, and they were very organized (by how swifty they could disperse). These were well-trained horsemen, but we also have to acknowledge that they were vehicles of wars, the monk couldn't help but see them as monsters.

They weren't merciless by themselves. They were only merciless if they were ordered to. I guess that is a good surpise that the monk was spared. Not all antagonists are just barbarians.


Good thing those swirling flags went away and they disperse like they came from all over and not any one direction oh and now the poem changes. Instead of it talking about tweleve poems that spoke of a lost poem its talking about the lost poem being the only one and the other are missing and still the fragrance upon the wind?
The fact is, even if the horses were from the same direction, they wouldn't get off the hill in single file. Going back to the song, the monk realized that he made a mistake about the maiden. He was really hearing the sound of a bell, not the sound of strings. From the tone the maiden missed the twelve, he realized that it was the twelve who died in battle.

For the thirteen flowers who came before the conflict,
twelve of them fell, but one remained.
The one remained was the maiden, who continued the struggle against the conflict.
The sacrifice of the twelve had combined their strength to the maiden, like a fragrance that was blessing the remaining comrade.


Sorry I don't see a game there what is the monk supposed to do. Does he have a quest does he have a character.
The monk is not the PC.

Is he sad or is he a symbol of something else is he a metaphor? There really is no game for the old monk and what about the maiden the soldiers didn't see her or say "A blind monk [and a beautiful maiden], captian"
The monk symbolizes a passive believer of peace. You play the maiden. The maiden was long gone when the horsemen arrived. The maiden had a mission.

This entry isn't even an introduction its an ending. It burries the readers sense of wonder then the soldiers leave all that transpires between the sounds and the monk while he is meditating means nothing at the end.
This is an introduction written with the end in mind. The conversation the monk and the maiden maded stated the semantic argument of the story, and the thematic ingredient of the game. It even displayed the emotional side of the story. If you consider what the monk was trying to listen in the rain and what the monk got at the end, you see completeness in the piece as an introduction:

The monk was trying to find a bell in peace. The maiden came along to provide a perspective. The monk was left with the perspective of the maiden, but whether the bell was true or not was still unknown. It is up to the player to decide whether the goals were just an illusion. Unlike your entry, this isn't false advertisement, because a defeat would lead to a meaningful ending.


it gives no allusion to any fallen conrads whatsoever and the only reason I say that is because Estok said that is what the twelve strings, poems, or influences are suposed to be.
Cherry flowers is the symbol of samurai. Falling flowers means falling samurai.
Thirteen flowers that met before a rain meant thirteen individuals who met because of a common goal, and that common goal was the basis of a kinship. And that made the thirteen comrades.

The storm has already come and it is over there is nothing left for the monk to do. He just travels and speaks in the third person. His words are trite and shallow as if he was a baby or a cave man.
The storm hasn't come. The game is not about the monk. The words used are simple words because they didn't value hard words. They valued simple words with deep meanings.

Perhaps it would be better translated into Japanese but I don't see the point of reading it in english if it was meant to be writen in Japanese. It is a travesty to my ears and my mind to read!
It was designed to be in English. But the design also preseves the tempo of a Japanese theme. Therefore, the dialogues should give a feeling of a unique, cultural rhythm pertaining to the era and setting of the story, instead of the plain modern English or old English.


Even though you tore my piece down Estok and your words were quiet sharp like the spears of the barbarians I do not take offense and forgive you. I will learn from some of your more applicable criticisms. I hope that you have the wisedom to see your own faults that I hope I covered completely.
It wasn't a spear. It was called an estok--a very sharp sword that goes through all kinds of armors.

Read what you wrote with the eye a year from now, and it should read like something completely worthless.

You guys really don't know how to read. I said my entry was full of flaws. I said it was so easy to write something better in retrospect. I didn't say that what I wrote was perfect, but the things in it were still a lot better than the things in some other entries.

Semantics, emotion, and thematics are the major focuses of a writing. When you see Entry 5, the semantics is ignored, the emotion is simplistic and forced, and the thematics is incoherent and uncreative (uncreative because it was just a group of barbarians raiding a village, how many times have you seen it in RPG, RTS, and movies? Incoherent due to the use of mixed voices and the mentioning of camera and scenic directives, they were like constant reminders to the viewer that it is all made up, and that just destroys immersion.)

You really have to have read nothing to believe that I find my own thing perfect. If you think that I value my own thing as God, you have forgotten what I said. Compared to a full-fledge demonstrative introduction, entry 6 is crap. So it will be unfair to say that I value it as much as you value God. I told you exactly why none of the entries were impressive and you didn't believe it.

Compared to the lack of the three elements in your writing, it is justifiable to say that what you wrote was not good. Way before it was compared to anything else. This is what you need to understand. The quality of what you wrote is independent to what to what other people wrote. The fault I mentioned about your writing were not based on comparison to other writings.

I said that your semantics is absent. And you couldn't argue around that because it was. I said that your emotion is being hammered into the viewer. And you can't argue around that either because you thought that it was correct. I said that your presentation was not immersive, and you also won't see that because you think that it was acceptable and they were good descriptions.

Quote:I was wrong it wasn't poetic it was hopeless.

You are very wrong in this statement. Not once did I suggested that it needs to be poetic. I was asking for semantics. Being Poetic is a style choice, an equivalent style to other styles. Being semantically developed is a requuirement. Your piece was hopeless because it didn't develop the semantics, regardless of what style you used.

Quote:There is no hope in reading what you have writen unless I knew Japanese culture the way you appear to, then I will never understand anything you write.

The piece actually didn't require you to konw Japanese to understand it. It is an extra dimension if you know Japanese, but it is not required. The problem with you, is the assumptions you made despite the writing was telling you something else. If you had simply read it as fantasy, then you will discover that maybe you can't directly apply what you know in the setting of the story.

Examples:

You don't need to know that a Japanese temple is not a single building. Why? Because the writing described that the big bell was in a courtyard. That already told you that there were probably more than one structure in the area refered to as the temple.

You don't need to know what a Koto is. The piece told you what it is. It told you that it was supposed to be a thirteen string instrument, and for the particular koto in the story, one of the string was missing.

You don't need to know that cherry flowers represent samurai. As long as you have a sense that a song about falling flowers can't be about just falling flowers. On top of that, the song itself personified the flowers. This tells you that the flowers represented human beings. You don't need to know Japanese to know this.

The tempo. The tempo was set by the arrangement and commas in the dialogues. You don't need to know Japanese to know that a comma signifies a short pause. The way the character spoke told you that there were not having a casual conversation. You don't need to know Japanese to understand that neiher.

Quote:There is no hope in reading what you have writen unless I knew Japanese culture the way you appear to, then I will never understand anything you write. Is that what you want, to slay all your readers with ignorance or do you wish to entertain or perhaps enlighten.

This is the same kind of misunderstanding you made earlier. You aren't able to separate the arguments about the requirements and the styles:

I was telling you that your piece lacked meaning. My piece had something remotely poetic, and you drew the conclusion that I was telling you that being poetic is a requirement. I didn't say that.

I was telling you that the voice of a piece needs to match its cultural setting. You looked at my piece, and the culture was Japanese, and you made the wrong conclusion that knowing the culture was required to read the piece. I didn't say that, and the piece wasn't written with that requirement. You are drawing wrong conclusions.

Quote:Do you teach anything with your writing or just challange others to accept you as a killer of hope.

The writing teaches you that if you pick a cultural setting, the voice needs to match the setting. It tells you that simply having a scene is not enough, it needs to have a meaning behind the scene. These are the two main things. Besides those, a writing should be rereadable. The use of hidden meanings is only one of the many way to achieve rereadability. (So don't draw the conclusion when I said a writing needs to be rereadable, that it needs to have hidden meanings.) If the piece is about a particular theme, then, not only the scenery, but also the dialogues, the meaning of the dialogues, and the construction of the writing, should match the theme. The last thing is that, while writing is a passive medium, the effect of the medium should be beyond passive--the reader should be stimulated and engaged. To semantically engage a reader means that while the writing is presenting information, the reader has to be stimulated to think about the issue, in addition to simply following the argument presented. In order words, it is not about presenting an argument, but to present the piece that direct the player to form an argument. This is the "show, don't tell" rule applied on the level of semantic construction. This sets a semantically established fiction apart from an essay with a thesis.

To rephrase what s/s said, to say that a writing needs to communicate is not good enough, it has a small implication of a one-way transfer of information--the author is the speaker, and the reader is the listener, and the purpose of the writing is to state as clearly the message of the speaker as possible. This is not entirely correct. To engage a reader, means that the reader is also part of the communication process. The reader doesn't take the strict role of an audience, but also as an active participant to verbalize the argument of the speaker.

As an analogy, the job of the speaker is to not make the reader repeat what he had said verbatim, but to lead the reader into forming the desired conclusion because on what the speaker said.

In your writing, you simply presented one side of an argument: that the barbarians are undisputably bad, and revenge is the only option. If you think in terms of essay writing, this makes a very bad essay because the viewer sense that you ignored any cons to your argument. Fiction writing is not an essay, but semantically, your writing is suffer this analogous problem. The way you presented your arugment denied any imagination and thoughts by the reader. That is what made it boring and unengaging.

When you commented:

Quote:Yet, you leave no escape in your writing for imagination but weave your way of sword play into every word.

It applied to your writing. Not mine. You showed something one dimension, and forced the reader to take your perspective. You left no escape for the reader to question, to imagine. On the other hand, my piece showed two perspectives on peace and how to achieve it. Only by showing two perspectives can you form an argument. Otherwise, you are just playing on faith through propaganda.

Quote:For I see none for me. You have left me with nothing will you accept my humble apology to your superior skill at the pen. I don't know whether to praise you or to cry because I see no hope.

Frankly, I don't pity you. I have told you all the strongest points where you can advance your writing. It is your fault to feel defensive about it. I am not a kindergarten teacher, I don't get sued for making kids cry. And you are not a kid. You are correct that by the standard that I am using right now, your writing is crap, and so is mine. What is the point of crying? Is it so surprising that what you wrote is crap by some standard? Won't it be more surprising if a year from now, you didn't see what you wrote as crap?

Being able to see crap is probably the most important skill. Seeing hope or not is your problem. I didn't doom you. I doomed what you wrote, and told you how to change so that you won't write crap like that anymore. It is a virtue to be able to justify why a piece of writing is crap. I showed you a way to do it.

Quote:Tell me that there is some hope show me a sign that you have feelings other than mercilessness.

There is no value in being merciful in an evaluation. And there is no reason to give a sense of security in face of much larger problems. I am not your girlfriend. I see the problems in your writing, I showed you the problems, I justisfied my arguments, and occasionally gave examples. I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact is, I can justisfy praising entry 3 and entry 9. But for 5, I just don't see a lot worth praising. Entry 9 was the most thematically immediate. And entry 3 had a potential deep characterization. Entry 5 is just crap by itself and in comparison. Only from this, can you know that a praise from me is not meaningless or a word of courtesy. Your piece didn't deserve it. I don't know what to say if you think that that is merciless. The standard doesn't get lowered just so that you can feel a little better.

Quote:Show me that you care. And if you care not I shall ignore every word out of your mouth for all eternity. Remember that I wrote my entry in about 20 minutes I didn't think much of the symbolism because I don't feel I have to.

You need to pay much attention to what I said. Your entry was crap, regardless how fast you wrote it. The intention of the author cannot be justified by the constraints, especially when you had a change to defend your entry. Your misuse of the term symbolism told me that you didn't know exactly what symbols were. And you need to make it very clear that having symbols was not what I attacked about your writing. I attacked your piece by saying that it had no meaning. I didn't say anything about symbolism. Meaning of the piece.

If you think that you can writing some good in 20 minutes and in that 20 minutes it didn't occur to you that the meaning is important, then that tells me the priorities of the author.

The priorities you had, dictated the quality of what you wrote. You were given an opportunity to express what you would have added if you had more time. The comments you made were still trapped by your wrong priorities. That meant, even if you had more time, you won't be doing it right. Let me say it again, it wasn't about symbols, but the meaning. You can have a lot of symbols pointing to different things without focusing on a meaning.

I criticised your work because I knew that you are present. I don't bother criticising others because they were just gone after they submitted the entries. To be honest, I don't personally care about your development. To me, you are like a black box, an anonymous author what faults so obvious. I was just stating the obvious flaws, especially when it comes to the meaning of a writing. I haven't seen much posts that were focusing on the meaning of a writing. So in general, I focus my criticism on that area, because other posters will fill in the other aspects.

To me, the meaning of a story is really a cheap shot. It is so prevalently absent, like a missing chapter in composition. My posts are so boring I don't even bother editing them. Almost every criticism I made were about semantics. It bores me too. I would think that by this time it would be obvious that it is a major flaws in writings. So in reality, you really don't need to read what I wrote. I only wrote three words in a nutshell:

Meaning is important.

Quote:However, you challanged me; you challanged all the contestents but it still doesn't change the fact that I did not like your story and do not think it would make an interesting game.

What is wrong with being challenged? That was the whole point. The problem with you is that you didn't say anything challenging. I has nothing to do with whether someone likes a story. I said your story had no meaning. That had nothing to do with whether I like your story or not personally. You are not distinguishing the arguments from the preferences.

I said "It didn't have it."

I didn't say, "I don't like it because I couldn't see it."

Quote:Things are as they are and if people want to change the winner of the contest then so be it I will relinquish it. Would that appease the great Estok. So what would you have me do? Should I make sure that you are named winner of the contest to increase your ego which seems to have no fruitfullness. Will you criticize this too and everything everyone says or will you accept that we are all not as perfect as you?

How does this relate to the winner of the contest? I made an argument about the evaluation ability of the judge. The winner of this contest is the winner of this contest. I disagree with the depth of evaluation. How does that related to changing the winner? If you think that that was the point of the arguments, it was not.

Quote:So where are your great writings master Estok where is the prize you have received. Where are your triumphs where is your degree? What makes you the one to believe you can say that yours was the best? I don't think that I see your name on the bestsellers list nor do I see you proclaimed as a writer of any kind, no I see you only as a ghost on these forums and as an impediment to the learning that they promote.

You are making a pathetic statement. I posted my reason why Entry 6 performed better on the areas I compared to the three other similar entries. I didn't even say that it was the best. If you having't noticed, in my arguments I was arguing on the depth of the story and characterization, but not heavily on writing. So I haven't even started talking about writing as it was applied to this contest. What made you draw the conclusion? I wasn't even there yet.

I just said this line:

Your piece had no interesting meaning, because it was simple oppressor-victim situation. It was reactive, and without deep cause of motivation.

What kind of credential do you need before you can be convinced? Why does it take a bestseller author to convince you this. Are you that deprived to think independently, that you can only follow what others tell you?

Re: Paraphrasing criticisms

Quote:Original post by 5MinuteGaming
Well, I don't mind a harsh critquing as long as the dangerous comments are left out. Such as your work sucks. Or you can't write for crap. I really don't think those opinions mean anything to me but they still don't help me to consider your arguments in a professional manner.

The whole point I have been making is that I justified by criticisms. Are you able to paraphrase the things I said that you agreed, and the things I said that you don't agree?

If you can list the things I said and the reason I said it, then I know that you at least understood what I said, regardless whether you agree with them or not. And that will end the argument. I want you to list them, because, from your last post, you thought I said something that I didn't say.

Quote:Estok have you ever tried keeping an open mind or do you like appearing as close minded?

Right now, that wasn't my problem. Because I can list what you said about mine and I can give you my response. Can you do the same with what I said? Or did you just skipped my reasons after you felt criticised?


What you said about Entry 6:

1. "I don't understand it."

Based on what you wrote about it, there were some evidence that you didn't spend enough effort trying to comprehend the situation. For example, I don't think that it is difficult to understand that there were two character conversing. Because the line:

The traveler came under the eave, to share the only dry floor in the mountain.

Won't make any sense if there was only one person. But even that was cloudy for you. Furthermore, there should be no trouble identifying 'the traveler' as 'the maiden', because 'traveler' is a genderless word, but I used a female pronoun after the monk made a guess on the traveler's gender:

replied the traveler in a fine, resonating voice, yet to pass her twentieth spring.

That should have confirmed the association that the traveler was the maiden. This is in addition to the dialogue that verbally verified the monk's deduction.

Therefore, when you said that you didn't understand it, you didn't really say much because you didn't even understand these.


2. "Third person dialogues."

I understand that it can be confusing if it is your first time seeing a dialogue in third person. However, the format itself was pretty structure. First of all, the first five spoken passages were labelled to indicate who the speakers were. The sixth one did not, but followed a consistent format praising the monk's hearing. The seventh line was expectedly unlabelled, because by this time, it should be obvious that the conversation was going like a zebra. There were only eight parts of that conversation. Five of them were LABELED. So if you don't know who was speaking the line, it really wasn't the writer's fault. Regardless whether you think the use of Third person dialogue was appropriate or not, you can't really justify your claim that you get confused about the speaker. Again, because, five of the parts were __labeled__. Since they were labeled yet you were confused, It spoke more to me that you didn't try to understand it.


3. "Too many hidden meanings"

I am not sure what you considered to be hidden meanings. But since you didn't understand it at all, you belief that there were too mang hidden meanings wasn't a conclusion you drew based on your own understanding. If you didn't understand it, how did you know that there were any meaning at all. If you are not sure that there was a meaning at all, how did you start accusing that there were too many hidden meanings? This tells me that you drew your conclusion based on what I said about the entry, not on what you understand about it. You drew conclusions based on secondary sources. So the claim from you that there were too many hidden meanings was incredible. You didn't have enough information to draw that conclusion based on the actual writing.


4. "Unclear gameplay and story."

This is understandable if you don't understand the situation. But since you don't understand the writing so much, it is difficult to tell whether gameplay and story were unclear because you didn't understand it, or because the piece itself didn't infer them. So you are not in a good position to make that conclusion.


5. Other factors that weakened your arguments:

If you don't understand so much about it, why did you rate it above entry 1.Wedding and 7.Heritage? Why did you say that it was "Very Poetic" when nothing seemed to make sense to you? The criticism you made after I criticise you, seemed like an act of retribution, because you contradicted your own judgement earlier. If there were so much flaws about 6, I want to understand why 7 was even worse.

Does my perspective sound reasonable to you? Do you understand that your criticisms were heard, although some of them aren't valid? For these five items, I countered none of them based on style or preference. I simply told you why the points you made were incredible. It wasn't a question on open-mindedness. Did anything I said here sound unreasonable to you? You sounded unreasonable to me. Do you see my reasons for saying it?

I don't criticise without justifications. You are making a claim that I said something unjustified. I want to know what led you to that conclusion by listing them like how I listed yours. If you can't do that, don't say that I made meaningless criticism.

Quote:Hmm, maybe I should critique Estok's for comparison. The overall score would probably be similar, since I ranked yours second and Estok's third, but it might be interesting to see how the two entries earned and lost their points in different categories.

Yes, please do 6. Actually I want to see how you rate 7 also. There was something I don't know how to rate about 7.