If the author makes me care what happens to the characters, I can overlook typos, editing errors, misused grammar, misspellings, even British spellings. All the author has to do to get my interest in a story is, first, to provide a good description (blurb), and then be a good storyteller. The technical details are, at worst, a minor annoyance.
I wholeheartedly agree. Decent storytelling is always the key. The best, most knowledgeable writing expert, can't save a badly told story. If the story is captivating, you generally don't notice the flaws. You ONLY spot the flaws because the story is lacking. That said, cleaning up the story with more refined text only adds to the underlying story, but it doesn't make or break it.
You need to start with a decent story. Ir you can't accomplish that, all the techniques in the world won't save your damn story, but adding the proper techniques makes a good story into a superb story!
That's why I like discussing different literary techniques, so we can ALL decide to use those techniques or not, as our story demands. I never mean to imply that authors HAVE to apply a particular technique, or that every other technique is inferior, only that authors should have every available technique they need in their quiver, so he can pull it out when needed.
More techniques, based on their likelihood of success in a particular setting, is simply giving us a basis to evaluate which techniques to use when. But it's never a zero-sum game. Use a technique or not, but focus on what makes the best story, rather than feeling you're required to use any particular technique.
These discussion (about technique) are only for us to evaluate new techniques, not value judgements about their use. Whatever works, works. Whatever doesn't, doesn't. Finito!