This is common problem called "illiterate literary critique".
People who don't read books, or have restricted themselves into limited genres, subjects and styles are easily thrown off.
It's common to see very good writing as contrived or pretentious if it's not what you are not familiar with. Claims of elitism are used to paint actual skill and quality as negative.
It is is possible to know where the style comes from and still dislike it. E.g. I read Plato’s Republic [sic] and hate it for, among other things, its literary style. I find it artificial and, in the case of Plato, fundamentally dishonest - serving as an argument from authority (see Popper’s critique in “Open society and its enemies vol 1”).
People who don't read books, or have restricted themselves into limited genres, subjects and styles are easily thrown off.
It's common to see very good writing as contrived or pretentious if it's not what you are not familiar with. Claims of elitism are used to paint actual skill and quality as negative.