If you write only for the money and not for the sake up bettering yourself as a human being, then yes, you may be insulted. Otherwise, see above.
Really? I write because I enjoy writing. And being paid for it would be nice. I don't think I've ever written anything with the express purpose of "bettering myself as a human being." (I try to do that in other ways.) So should I be insulted?
To use another analogy, since you're into martial arts, is the guy who studies martial arts because he wants to get some exercise and wouldn't mind knowing how to defend himself if the need arises a schlub who can never be as skilled or as worthy as the guy who studies martial arts because it's his personal path to spiritual enlightenment and a way of life? There's nothing wrong with the latter, but lots of "hobbyist" martial artists can kick the asses of some of the "spiritual warrior" martial artists if it came down to it.
There is nothing wrong with writing to be published. You keep ignoring counterexamples to your assertions. Dickens wrote for a living. He was a commercial writer. That didn't mean he wasn't also writing because he loved writing, because he had things to say, and because he was good at it. You seem to be saying that Dickens is a unicorn, a rare bird among all those other commercial writers who are just shitting words onto paper. I'm surprised that you really don't get why this is offensive.
And saying "Oh, well, that doesn't apply to all you AW writers" is kind of dumb and transparent. Really,
no one here is a bad writer? Come on now. If you're going to make broad statements, it doesn't fool anyone to say "Well, I'm not talking about
you." What if Stephen King were a member of this board? Would you then exempt him from your criticism?
(I'm not saying you do have to consider everyone here, or Stephen King, a great writer. But if you say "99% of all commercial writers write crap," it stretches credibility to say you're sure that everyone here at AW is in the 1%.)
I believe, from experience, that the more popular something is, often the less talented it is. I stated my opinion and people tried to say I was wrong. There are so many books that are just stories, nothing of any gain to me aside from a fanciful adventure.
Well, two things:
1. You've been given many counterexamples. And I can point at lots of books that are neither popular nor good. In fact, most untalented writers don't become popular,
because they are not talented. Sour grapes about Stephen King or Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling or Dan Patterson or Stephanie Meyer or whoever else you think is popular by lucky fluke or appealing to the unliterate masses is not a strong argument. If anything, anyone who sells in those numbers is by definition an outlier, regardless of their talent. I don't think you can extrapolate much of anything about the few writers who become millionaires.
2. You are treating it as objective fact that an "entertaining story" has nothing to do with writing ability. If you don't care about storytelling, that's your personal aesthetic taste. Some writers are great wordsmiths but lousy storytellers. According to you, that would make them great writers. According to me, that makes them boring. Your personal tastes do not define writing talent.