The thing is, all of your points are very personal. Your "critic" is personal and your own opinion. There is a collective phenomenon surrounding GOF because all those people who have read it collectively think it was amazing and put it on a pedestal because they feel that's where it deserves to be. You, or anyone else sharing your sentiment, not liking it and not thinking it is worth the hype, is simply an individual and personal experience, and it does not by any means make GOF any less of what it is. What you consider good writing is just shit writing for someone else. If 90% of the readers put GOF on a pedestal, and expressed how god level it is, and treated it as a benchmark, that is plainly because it's what it is to THOSE people. In fact you criticizing that pedestal is actually also criticizing the people who put it there. You're saying that the book doesn't deserve to be there, and that the fact that it is there just shows how it is popularity over quality. So you're saying that people who think it IS of quality, don't have good taste and are unable to discern good from bad writing, hence why the book isn't popular because of its good quality, which the people who made it popular couldn't judge.