Think AA has a point...
...it's often too easy to confuse "easy to read" with "well written."

I'd argue Rowling's Boy-Git-Wizard comes under "easy to read," although I have to say I tried and failed to read 3 of them. (Not on account of being retarded, I hasten to add.) I tried the first two, and after being mildly amused by the first couple of chapters in which he is abused by his foster family, I just got utterly fed up with the juvenile tone. As soon as he got to Hogwart's I really couldn't be bothered with it.

At the insistence of an ardent fan, I did try to read one of the later ones, on the promise that "they get more grown-up later in the series."
Well, it was less juvenile, but that just made it all the more obvious how lousy the prose was.

"Well written" is an accolade I'd give to something like Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, or A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M Miller Jr. (Many others, obviously; those are just a couple of favourites)

Although, to open another can of worms, would you consider Stephen King to be "well written?" I know he's often dismissed as "just another horror writer," but I thought some of his better stuff (e.g., It, Dolores Claiborne, Misery) was really rather well executed.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 8 Jul 2009, 10:54, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I liked the film of Misery
but I heard Hitler did too.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 8 Jul 2009, 10:56, Reply)

Stephen King
I prefer his short story stuff. I'd suggest that it is well written, but mostly when compared to the standards of other popular authors.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 8 Jul 2009, 10:57, Reply)