• The dominant literary trends have evolved toward an "essence" or "likeness"of literature. And the present of the author is expected.
• Writing must be irregular, despite the ordinary being the most immersive form. It is writing itself that receives attention above story.
• Alluding to profundity more alluring than creating profundity through examination. Like the reader wants the illusion of being moved for ease.
• Being challenging is essentially to being good.

I agree that these points do mark the current tone of acclaimed writing, but I also find the author to be bias in his readings of the past and the present.

• I don't writing must be explicit to be good.
• I think hooptedoodle can be evocative.
• I think obscurity is a tool of a good author.
• The list goes on and on.....

I feel that he examines his examples through different lenses, that the same styling but different authors (one he praises on merit of tradition, one too nouveau) produce different opinions simply because. Previous eras of writing have also produced "superficially pleasing prose" or "a good sentence."

Why can the well-paced, moving plot coexist with the challenging, self-conscious prose? Why not lift up the former rather than banish the latter?