Why does illustration get a pass, but storytelling doesn't? I think that's very inconsistent. You're not thinking of it as art if that's the case. Picasso draws bad drawings. We call it abstract. I wrote bad stories, we call them bad? You're as conservative of stories being told a certain way as many people are of artwork being realistic. A lot of people don't like to look at abstract art at all.

Not all illustrations get a free pass.

For example: commercial artist learn what colors, lines, and patterns to use to make sure they invoke a certain feeling with those who look at their work. They gain satisfaction when others look at their work and feel the feeling the artist intended. To be a commercial artist means you must understand how humans work.

A lot of art can be selfish too. someone could make a flawed drawing. they could have intended the proportions to be perfect, but they're  actually heavily flawed. Maybe colors clash so much it hurts peoples eyes and invokes anger and discomfort. But the artist can be completely selfish and say its not intended for their eyes. It could be just for that one artist and them alone.

The point is however that you can't treat them exactly the same way. Story telling has two key components: "Story" and "telling". You have to understand what a Story is and you have to understand how to tell it. And Telling it doesn't mean talking to yourself, it means you have "someone" in mind. An audience. Story telling requires you to be less selfish and really make a connection with your audience.

What I believe art is, and I promise is the best definition you will find anywhere besides some crazy dude saying "everything": Non-functional aspects of something. That's the bare minimum where I look at something and think of it as art, but it's also anywhere where a statement is being made.

Of course art can be based entirely on its function (kinetic sculptures). So your definition is definitely a flawed one.

Yes, art can also make a statement as well, but don't confuse that as the core of what makes art "art". Making a statement is part of the goal of "invoking a feeling/thought. Invoking feeling/thought can be done without actually making a statement of any kind (abstract)

Without invoking a feeling or thought, the statement is pointless in terms of Art. It might as well be a picket sign simply with the statement on it. But like i said, visual art can be selfish at times because it can be made without a single audience in mind other than the artist themselves. This is partly due to humans being imperfect. if we had the ability to photograph anything our minds imagined with exact precision, then we wouldn't to pick up a pen/pencil /paintbrush/clay and make it so we see it with our very eyes.

But this is very important that you accept this is as part of story telling. You HAVE to invoke a feeling when writing. You have to aim for it. Without invoking a feeling, you have the most horrible writing. Its just words filling up space with one random encounter to the next. Time and time again, I've asked you: "What is your story suppose to make me feel when i read it?" And you simply could not answer it. It was always "i don't know" and there were times when you didn't even want to think about it. And i see now, because its never been part of the equation when writing your stories. You never cared about your audience.

You have to understand that story telling is not the same as visual medium.

So you can see right here. Instantly. We have a different set of philosophical beliefs. You only think of a story as something that functions in a specific way. You leave no room for it to be artistic, no room to appreciate anything beyond its function. Just as most people leave no room for abstract art. Most people believe illustration's function is to be realistic. Before cameras were invented, it was, but that's no longer necessary.

I'm not forcing you to have my philosophy. I only care about a good story, and thats all.  So i'm going to prove to you why this isn't true by bringing back your stories: Blade Regalia and FNO.

FNO first. sure, you made some of the most annoying as hell characters in this story. You wanted to push ideas, but didn't create a foundation. You had a creator go into his own creation for a character he cared about (Tara). Which is a problem because A) you didn't make your readers care enough about his relationship and how much it means to him and B) you didn't even establish any character personality traits for your reader to grasp onto.

This is where you were spouting out your intentions with your story. Character having an abortion. Characters having divorce. ideas with no structure, or really purpose other than your statement. you didn't plan out what iw as suppose to feel. and guess what i felt: annoyed. Felt like you were throwing ideas and see what sticks. And couple that with NOT TRUSTING YOU TO ACTUALLY USE THOSE THEMES PROPERLY.

Your stories have one thing in common: your characters are soo annoying, they're unreadable. None of the characters had a redeemable quality worth looking into. NOne of the characters had potential to grow or at least you didn't show us that. You had a statement, and you said it. it was a stupid one. character was annoying. do you feel accomplished?

OK, lets move onto Blade Regalia. This time, you're aiming for something else. Maybe because it was intended for an audience (finally) although that audience was in the medium of video games (which lacks freedom in telling the story properly).  You made Karen or whatever her name was to be the typical hero. But you made it almost your mission to NOT explore the world of Blade Regalia and your characters. Yes we got backstory. Yes we got to see other characters at least have an ounce of personality. But your story telling was so rushed, you didn't allow readers to provoke thoughts or ideas. it was just exposition, and moving onto the next piece of exposition.

What city was Karen in and what was it like in there? IF Karen lived in the streets what was her way of living? How did she fall in love with the guy?

questions that shouldn't be asked were asked. This was you missing every opportunity. THis has nothing to do with your philosophy. This has to do with your lack of perception. Your story 9 out of 10 times is missing structure. And because its missing structure, you can't invoke thoughts and feelings within an audience. And dont even try to tell me thats not your goal.

I'm not against the idea of personality. I'm not even against good story telling. I know you probably think I am.

You're right, i do think you're against good story telling and the idea of a personality. Its more important to you to go against the current than to understand it and grow from it.

Me personally, on a completely personal level, I would rather read something that changes my way of thinking rather than just wastes my time. That's why it's important to me to write that way.

I'm pretty sure every artist and writer wants to achieve this to some degree with their story. or at least provoke a thought and feeling to invoke change just as much as a feeling.

there's no excuse for your writing though.

We have totally different beliefs on a philosophical level. As I said, you want this, I want that. Biggest difference between Picasso and I is Picasso actually knew what he was doing when he did it. Maybe no one is the target audience, maybe everyone is. Maybe you're not the target audience for reasons much deeper than just your age, ethnicity, gender, and religion, which would be the case for other stories.

i want good story. and i dont know what you want, but i know objectively, you dont want a good story.