So! I have several thoughts here!
This is missing a whole lot of nuance but basically literary elitism is awful and garbage and when figuring out if you like something or not I wouldn't concern yourself too much with what other people say or what's generally considered more "literary." This isn't to say you should disregard other peoples' views on books entirely, just think carefully about whether or not you agree with them! "Good writing" is highly subjective - I've literally had discussions in literary theory classes about how no value judgement on literature is intrinsically worth more than any other. Figure out what good writing means to you rather than how to identify some nebulous, exterior concept of good writing!
NightClerk's advice is all good - would definitely suggest annotating as you go and reading other peoples insights.
Another thing I'd recommend: Step 1. Think about/note down exactly which parts of the books you ejoyed and which you didn't. Step 2. Then think about why - did it feel abrupt? was it different from a lot of other books? did that character's actions make no sense? Step 3. Try to get more precise in your answers to these questions - what could the writer have done to make it less abrupt? what exactly was different?
Hopefully this will help you refine your opinions a little more - jargon looks fancy but it's best used in pursuit of genuine opinions about what you read. Like, the function of jargon is to put words to what books make you feel and why they do that. Again, this is lacking a whole lot of nuance, but that's the broad point.
Also - reading literary criticism of what I've just read is something I always find useful in organising my thoughts. JSTOR has a lot of free articles, as does scholar.google.com (look for the links on the right-hand side!). Also - Oxford University have a site with lots of their lectures online: http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/units/faculty-english-language-and-literature (Don't feel bad if you can't understand what these articles are getting at - it's most likely the fault of the article for not being accessible enough. :P)