I think that some elements of good/bad writing can be important for most readers, while other elements seem to matter more to writers and some more critical readers. For example, writers seem to be a lot more sensitive to cliches than the average reader. Many readers simply won't care that a novel uses raised eyebrows ten times. It's not imaginative or artistic, but at least it gets the idea across by showing rather than telling, that characters are mildly surprised.
There's an article I cant find now from Salon, where some middle class lit fic. writer was complaining bitterly about how it isnt worth her while writing anymore as she doesnt get paid enough. The summary of it was that she wrote one book and got a six figure advance, which she thought was adequate for the amount of time she spent researching it. It went on to sell just 50,000 copies, but her publisher didnt seem too worried so she spent 5 years researching and writing another one (which I think was something about care homes). She received an advance of 'only' about $30,000 dollars. Which she didnt think was worth the 5 years she had spent (presumably rather intermittently, or at least with some other income) on it. She seemed quite aggrieved that the universe had failed to deliver on the 'amount of research to financial reward' ratio she was expecting. But it was her decision to spend that long writing it, and frankly is anyone reading a fictional book about care homes really going to care that the author has spent a PhD level amount of time researching the complete accuracy of them? Trash is quick to write, and whether it sells or not, you can churn out another one in short order I guess. Partly literary success is a numbers game. If you write one book in a period that 'trash' authors have written 15, their chances at least statistically, are better than yours.
Doesn't matter what's 'popular' if you write what you would want to read then you're heading in the right direction in my books (heh books).
