Translating the Rise of the Novel into Something More (or Less) Understandable

In thinking about the "Rise of the Novel," for my own sake, I've been trying to understand the concept in smaller schemas that one day may add up to a more wholesome understanding of this rise of the novel. For the sake of this blog entry, I want to put into words my understanding of the rise of the author as a part of the rise of the novel. I briefly jumbled my way through starting this thinking process in class yesterday, and I would like to somewhat more coherently jumble through it here.
I have noticed a trend as we read about Manley's proposed responsibility of a writer to provide a plausible plot and character, about the new responsibility Samuel Johnson was placing on writers to teach ideals in there writing rather than expose reality in its entirety, and about Wordsworth's proposed responsibility an author has to stay true to his genius even when readers disapprove. The author is growing from this person that is a small part of the "bookselling machine," equal to that of the horsecart driver, to the primary vehicle for art and human understanding in the culture. Wherease early on, the author needs to be instructed on how to create a "plausible" scenario, they ultimately reach a pinnacle where they are the primary means of instruction for the masses.
It seems to me that as the novel originated and developed, there were some hesitations about what exactly the purpose or the vehicle for such a form should be. For example, the author we opened this class with, Eliza Haywood, seemed to embrace this new form as simply a way to make money. With superficial characters that change rapidly and a plot that disjointedly jumps from one scene to the next seemingly just to test a slightly new love triangle out, Haywood illustrated that she was a prolific writer and could make a living doing so. Defoe would add to this legacy, emphasizing the economy of this new market and how to benefit financially from it. And yet, to me their writing is less polished and more prone to sloppy mistakes, not because they are not as talented writers as later "authors," but because the emphasis was not yet on the author of a novel being this vehicle for "veiled beauties." Of course, writers before this time (Shakespeare, Milton, Jonson, Chaucer) and even of this time (Alexander Pope, Johnation Swift) were seen as conduits of high art, but not within the context of this new form that focused so heavily on the imitation of real life and the interiority of humanity.
Because of this inferiority that the new form seems to have in the art world, and the increasing success that this new form begins to have in the marketplace, a merger between these two opposite worlds seems to collide. Not to say that many of those authors I listed in the past or present did not also enjoy financial success through their writing, but the creation of an entire print market did not coincide with the growth of their chosen form (satire, plays, poems, epic poems). Once the novel begins to be recognized as art, the only place for the author of that art is that of genius, for Johnson this is a person that knows better than the rest of people what is truly good for them and what they should be reading, and for Wordsworth this is a person that knows better than the rest of people what good art is and has the responsibility to keep producing high art for the sake of ungrateful recipients. Either way, as the author becomes more financially successful, and more artistically respected, they illustrate that the "rise of the novel" could really be rephrased as the "rise of the authors of the novel."