I'm saying that most people choose books based on subject matter
and writing style. I find nothing maddening about how a minority of people may choose their books.
Choosing books based on "style and execution alone" and valuing them because of "craft and creative integrity" are both fine. I see no problems there so long as you realize that's not how most people do it. And, so long as people who do it this way don't form an elitist attitude or otherwise be condescending about common preferences--either expressed or implied--then there's no problem there, either.
No one's threatening your method of choosing books, Prestidigitweeze. All I did was point out that yours isn't the way most people do it and that subject matter most certainly
is one of the criterion for judging the worth of a writer's decades-spanning output.
The judge resigned because she doesn't like the endless repetition and narrow focus. Repetition is what she was addressing with the face-sitting comment; subject matter is what we're all surmising--myself included--
which she denies.
In her explanation, she again alludes to his repetition--and she's right. It's hard to endure it when someone just endlessly says more of the same--like lengthy lists of books, for example.
While I think he's a good writer, and agree with her that "his reach is narrow" and that he is self-involved, I disagree with the "emperor's clothes" comment.
I also disagree with your analysis of how this discussion has progressed. As I've said, I find nothing maddening. No one has accused you of or implied that you are not expressing yourself clearly or being dishonest.
Repetition and self-involvement seem to be her complaints with Roth, and I agree--and I don't only find this to be the case with Roth.
(Hhmm, maybe I should repeat myself one more time about how annoying repetition is.)