The term good/bad writer can easily be dismissed as many indifferent writers have interesting things to say. But the anonymity of writers later heralded is a given (or perhaps a literary myth?). My focus here is on English and American writers as my knowledge of other literature is not deep enough to make comparisons. Here, I will consider two English Nobel prize winners for literature.

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) wrote jingoistic verse praising imperialism. Although memorable, his verse is often little more than doggerel. His stories are minor masterpieces of Europeans within Indian settings being Indian. But some of his work, especially his earlier stories of Anglo-Indian societies, with a nod to Guy de Maupassant and the literary naturalism of Emile Zola,

are mature compared to much of his later work. He received the Nobel Prize for literature This was at a time of truly great English speaking writers.

My second nomination is John Galsworthy who now is rarely read and only remembered for television productions of his long work The Forsyte Saga, a stylish piece of work, with a number of social truths but not really remarkable except for stamina.

Although judges' choices improved, for every Pearl Buck along comes Samuel Becket or Pirandello, many other literary prizes seem to go to those who espouse acceptable political or social views rather than memorable writing. In Britain, Kingsley Amis was more and more dismissed (rightly or wrong?) for his perceived misogynist viewpoint and his nicer son, Martin, likewise. OK, neither are or were genuinely great but good enough.

You do not need to agree with any of this! Responses to literature are to an extent subjective!