<!--quoteo(post=551955:date=Jan 27 2011, 08:48 PM:name=Greg the Cat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Greg the Cat @ Jan 27 2011, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=551955"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(Stuff about art)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That makes it sound like you're saying that while his art is good when outside of the book, it somehow becomes suddenly bad when done for the book, even though it's the same art style. That makes no sense. Though, yeah, that cover is pretty bad. At the very least, though, the artists the book has right now is better than 90% of the art being done by Ron Lim like it was from around #90 to #159. His art was absolutely <I>terrible</I>, and it didn't help that most of the time it was accompanied by bad writing. As for the two bits of writing you pointed out: Yes, those are examples of kind of bad writing. I guess the first can <I>kind of</I> be justified by her wanting to fit in, but it's still silly logic. The second, the best that can be said is that barely any of that's been explained yet, since it just recently happened. Still, yes, Ian Flynn's writing isn't flawless by any means, but honestly, whose is? Having some cases of bad writing doesn't completely make someone an all-around bad writer. Something similar goes for people's art, too. I'd rather judge them on all of their work on the book overall, and for Flynn, I generally like it. Yeah, not everyone will like it. People have different tastes and opinions.