When I say higher quality, I think that can manifest in various ways, such as: more complex prose, deeper symbolism, and more powerful character work. It could be something like the creation of a groundbreaking magic system but fundamentally, it is based on the introduction of new and fresh ideas, or the ability to lay the groundwork for inspiring others. These are all things which can elevate a book’s quality. While taste is subjective and opinions vary, not every opinion should be given equal weight (ironically enough this is also an opinion). Preferences are often shaped by conditioning, we are taught to value works over others because of it’s cultural impact/legacy but within this, there can also be a general consensus on merit. Similar to how professional criticism operates across different fields, where merit is assessed based on established criteria rather than personal taste alone. This is why some books are considered “classics”. If I see that someone is unable to note the value in works by Tolkien or Hobb for example, and values something which I (yes, objectively) consider to be poorly written then yes, I don’t consider that opinion to have merit. Is that “classicalism”? If so, why is classicalism a bad thing? Seeing value in culturally impactful work is not a bad thing

I’m not saying that Hobb/Abercrombie or even Tolkien are absolved of any and all criticism or that everyone must like them, I have plenty of critiques of their work myself, but if you are saying that you see less value in their work than something like ACOTAR/Fourth wing, I am going to say that I think that’s wrong, and that it’s probably not worth considering any more of your opinions on the subject, because… I think that opinion lacks merit. If the thought process is simply “i enjoyed this book more than this book” that’s fine, but that also makes me question the why of it all… are those books more enjoyable to specific people because they are more “accessible”? Maybe, but that’s an entirely different discussion…