There is a critical distinction between good and great taste. Good taste is defined by understanding and operating effectively within the established rules and traditions of a domain. Greatness is achieved only after mastering those rules and then intentionally breaking them to create something new and influential.

Contrary to being escapist, the best fantasy literature, from Tolkien to L'Engle, uses imaginary worlds to explore complex real-world issues like war, environmentalism, and social conformity. This fictional distance allows authors to make profound statements and challenge readers' assumptions without being preachy.

When knowledgeable readers disagree on a novel's interpretation, the root cause is often a fundamental divergence in their innate temperaments. Authors deliberately leave ambiguity, which allows readers' pre-existing dispositions—such as a desire for controversial readings—to shape their conclusions.

A key distinction between 'pulp' and 'literary' fiction is moral complexity. While genre fiction often relies on clear-cut heroes and villains, great literature like Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall' explores the moral ambiguity of its characters, reflecting the complex, non-binary nature of real people.

While reading great literature is essential, analyzing poorly written books can be a more effective learning tool for writers. The flaws in craft are more visible, allowing an aspiring writer to deconstruct the mechanics of storytelling and see how a narrative works (or doesn't).

Compilations of 'best books' are often an exercise in social posturing. Readers and critics select canonical works like 'Middlemarch' to project an intellectual image, overshadowing the genre fiction that may be more widely read and enjoyed. These lists are biased by ego and the desire to be seen a certain way.

Giving a well-known, beloved book a lengthy, well-written 1-star review is a strategy to farm engagement and followers on platforms like Goodreads. The controversy generates clicks and reactions, gaming the platform's incentives for clout.

Gladwell observes that his best-selling books received negative reviews from The New York Times, while his worst-selling book received a positive one. This suggests elite critical reception may not drive, and could even be inversely related to, mass-market success for certain creators.

The legacy of a novel like "Pride and Prejudice" isn't solely defined by its intellectual or social influence. The immense and lasting joy it brings to readers across generations is a profound, often underrated, form of changing the world.