Lets start with the basics. People like what they like. You can try and educate them so they can recognise dreadful butchery of language. You can try to make them appreciate rhyme and metre in prose. You can try.
People who are impressed by good grammer, clever structures in sentences, apposite use of metaphor and simile tend to people who get literature degrees and go on to write book reviews in newspapers. A very few will vote on who get prizes. They are a rare breed.
Everyone else prefers plot, character, snappy dialogue and humour.
People who write the kind of book that literary critics like probably are not interested in writing the kind of book I like. Actually I suspect they are incapable and just don't get plot, character etc. Its all about the style.
So far every book I have read that has won a literary prize has been dull as ditch water. Don Delillo pointless and boring, Salman Rushdie nope not my cup of tea, James Joyce...Oh dear god! Ulysses how can anyone recommend this pile of cack. Its the favourite book of many, many English lit students and its unreadable. "A man goes for a walk. Not much happens." is its most famous review.
Who could prefer that to The Odyssey which has gods and monsters, heroes and villains, jeopardy and death, real excitement and entertainment.
[sic] sauer face facts you are one of the minority. You prefer language to story. I cant condemn you. People like what they like and you can try to educate them, you can try.