Remnants of Ambiguous Love

@justforthelulz indeed, it was axed because the author wasn't offered an acceptable contract by the publisher. seems crazy to me because the original series now has over 10m+ hits. (yes 10 million)

I'll still finish up the rest of the chapters for practice though.
 
Well, first chapter gives me no real hint of who anyone is, what kind of people they are, what they're doing there, what motivates them . . . and they're all pretty, but kind of same-y, and all you see of anyone is their head and shoulders. So it's talking heads talking about nothing much except when they're heads that aren't even talking. Not really a riveting way to start a story. Maybe it'll get better.
 
@Sola9
seems crazy to me
Real greed is when someone destroys wealth in an attempt to grab more than can be got. Seems that someone was greedy. But, if no other publisher offered a contract that was acceptable to the creator, then it may not have been the publisher who was greedy.
 
@Oeconomist Perhaps. Considering the author has two works and none of which have been properly serialized (this one has 9 chapters, the other has 3) im guessing it's more got to do with the author as well.

A shame really, I think the art is unique and had potential.
 
This feels like a VN but that'd be doing VNs a disservice cause they have more soul then whatever's going on in this comic
 
16 pages and 7-8 characters have been introduced. Not the best sign, but it could make a recovery in the next 7 chapters before it's cancellation.
 
Only into chapter 3 and im sorta confused by the characters and the context of the characters. Its never really explained or introduced. I can only assume all the people at work have a crush on her.. as well as the sister ? But thats just me assuming.
 
@Oeconomist and @Sola9 It might not be a money issue but something in the details of the contract that is unacceptable. For example, I've heard that disney lays claim to anything its artists create, even if is original work or not on the clock.
 
@Insanityprism

The thing is that if Disney were offered a hot property by someone not already under contract, and responded unreasonably in terms of money or in terms of something else, that someone could and almost certainly would take it to another firm. So, the fact that the creator here is not being published by anyone suggests that the creator is making unreasonable demands.

Now, it could be that the publishers in this case have formed a cartel, jointly functioning like a monopsony in an incontestable market. Cartels strongly tend to fail in free markets, but can buy sponsorship from the state in controlled economies; however, I wouldn't presume the existence of a cartel in this case.

ATTN: @Sola9
 
@Insanityprism and @Oeconomist Most likely it wasn't a money issue. Nothing from the author's last note gave me the impression that they were after money.

Also according to comments and the author's final note it was a good thing they didn't sign a contract because apparently the "publishing" website is pretty scummy
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top