What gets up my nose is the sense (from certain people) that the enjoyment of cliche-free prose is morally superior to the enjoyment of referential prose. This is, I think, implied in "The good writers, the ones I respect, are authentic and original." I have no idea what authenticity is, frankly, so I will leave that one alone, but I like and respect lots of writers for whom originality is secondary. Such as, oh, William Shakespeare. Or P.G. Wodehouse. Or John Barth. Or Carol Duffy. Or the committee of the King James Bible. I am also fascinated by the process of adaptation--are the writers who adapted "Cranford" for television to be sneered at for failing to be original? Surely the thing is to judge on the merits, with originality being one criterion, and not among the most heavily weighted.
Now, having said that, novelty is awesome, too. There are plenty of writers I like and admire for their originality. Either for their originality of plot or of phrasing, or sometimes (not often) for both. Often for novelty in world-building, although not often, then, for the other kinds as well.
There's a Santayana line about consistency that says that consistency is a jewel, and that like a jewel, it is surprising how much some people are willing to pay for it. I think that applies to, well, nearly every good thing, but certainly to originality. Because, yes, shiny, great. But also? Have we not all struggled to comprehend the prose of someone too successfully avoiding common turns of phrase?
And yet--if you like that sort of thing, then that's the sort of thing you like. I like a different sort of thing (well-handled plot, mostly, and flamboyant characterization, and evocative language, with lots of predictability to make it all go down smooth), and I try not to allow myself to feel morally superior because I would rather read that someone had ham and eggs for breakfast than eggs and ham.
Hm. That wound up a ranty-rant, didn't it? I suppose as a reader I shouldn't take advice for writers personally, but I do.