I feel the same way. It’s a virtuous cycle: the more books you read, the more you understand the specific time and place, and the more you enjoy them.
The importance of the High School “Great Books” canon isn’t really the (arguable) greatness of each of those books. The important thing is that most of us have read them, or are at least aware of the stories and themes. This establishes a shared cultural literacy that provides us with thousands of points of reference for a variety of discussions that most people will understand.
Mostly I think your post was wonderful and I heartily endorse it. But I might take exception to this sentence, depending on whether you meant “some of…” or “all of the books I loved as a child.” If you’re saying that books that can be appreciated by children cannot be great in their way, or that they cannot be read with pleasure and appreciation by more mature, sophisticated readers, I disagree.
Well, I haven’t gone back to read most of my childhood books again so I can’t say all, but those I have re-read just don’t have the same impact now. But I absolutely think they are great books & it’s a little sad that I’ve lost the capacity to appreciate them. I don’t believe that great literature has to be complex, but I do believe that a lot of great literature is. And that it’s worth the effort to understand it.
I agree. The greatest children’s books can be equally enjoyed by adults.
Right. "You shouldn’t like that as I know more about the subject that you do is bullshit. Usually is not a “more discriminating” issue it’s because they are burnt out.
Film critics liking a B&W film that is B&W because it is different than the 100 other films they saw this year, and hating on nice, entertaining movies. Food critics complaining about “portions are too large” since they eat out a dozen times a week, etc etc.
Not the ones for parents to read to their kids or beginning readers. But yeah, YA and the better written books for older grade school kids can be a great read for all ages. The Hobbit is an example. So are the Dark is Rising series by Susan Cooper.
But Goodnight Moon? Maybe not. 
I’m not even sure it’s a matter of burnout, although that probably does play into it.
My suspicion is that there’s a pretty serious circular echo chamber effect going on- things are considered good because a certain group of people like them. And that certain group of people like them because they’re considered good.
I mean, that’s absolutely how it goes with a lot of other stuff- someone decides something is good, because it’s difficult, or complicated, or just not mainstream. Then others wanting to be part of the club agree with it, and it’s deemed good. After a while, there’s not even any real thought about it- it’s just part of the “generally considered good” category, and if you want to be seen as sophisticated, erudite, or whatever, you have to play along.
It’s basically the concept of received wisdom- single-edged adjustable razors yield the best shaves on the planet, craft beer is always better than macro brews, James Joyce is something other than unreadable garbage, and so on. And people just want to be part of the club, so they gush about Joyce or whatever Imperial-hoptastic-saison that someone said is good, or they go on about the differences between Merkur and 1940s Gillette razors.
And in effect, they impose this opinion on people outside their circle, as they set themselves up as “authorities”. In the case of literature, there’s a whole educational institution reinforcing this.
So…are you arguing that there is no objective measure by which to judge good writing?
No, I’m saying that the list of “great books” is more or less curated by a bunch of people who are basically echoing off each other, and that there are probably a lot of other books out there equally as good, interesting, imaginative, etc… that could be used more effectively to educate young people.
And I’m also saying that a lot of the “great books” are really terrible to read, even if they are examples of good writing. “The Sun Also Rises” sucked balls. Hemingway is a good writer, but the book is not entertaining, engaging or even interesting to the vast, vast majority of 17 year olds in high school.
I’m not saying we need to teach literature through graphic novels or anything like that, but that the OP’s question as to why there are “great books” that nobody seems to like, is because the books are objectively terrible for the vast majority of non-literature wonks to read, and that they’re only ‘great books’ because those people have set themselves up as the arbiters of what’s great and what’s not, and their opinions don’t actually match anyone’s but themselves.
I mean, some English professor can get hot and bothered about James Joyce, but “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” will always be steaming garbage to me. It’s literally unreadable, and what you can read is boring as hell. Hardly a “great” book. But it’s classified as such, because those English professors have decided it is.
Nobody thinks “impenetrable, hard to read, and not entertaining,” are desirable qualities in a book. There are just people who have different ideas about what constitutes those qualities than you do. The real problem, IMO, is that too many people can’t differentiate between, “This book is shallow and uninteresting,” with “If you like this book, you are shallow and uninteresting.”
I’d say it was more likely that you enjoyed the class on science fiction literature more because you like science fiction literature. People who don’t enjoy science fiction aren’t opposed to “fun” literature, they just have a different idea about what constitutes fun than you do. Enjoying a book because you like the writer’s prose or use of symbology is no less a valid reason to enjoy a book because you like the plot or characters, and saying that people who enjoy books for prose style or use of motifs aren’t “enjoying the book in its own right,” is no less an example of snobbery than looking down on someone for enjoying a corn dog.
Sure, but why are they the ones who are deciding what’s “great” and what isn’t? That’s the answer to the OP- because the “great books no one seems to like” are being chosen by literature people whose tastes are uncommon and not aligned with anyone’s but other literature people.
And worse, some people use that to throw shade on people who don’t like that kind of literature.
I am kinda with you but…
When we see the huge success of books like “50 Shades of Grey” which is, objectively, a bad book I am not sure we should rely on the masses either.
McDonald’s sells waaaaay more food than almost anyone else. Should we consider them the definition of “good” food because they are popular?
No, but I am saying that they’re not necessarily as “bad” as some would lead you to believe. Clearly there’s something appealing about both of them that causes them to sell a lot of books and burgers, and maybe that can be used as a teaching example of whatever those things are, rather than just condemning them. I mean, IMO, the poor writing of “Fifty Shades of Gray” is no more a defect than the hard-to-read nature, or lack of enjoyability of other “great books”.
I think bump has discovered postmodernism - nothing has any intrinsic value apart from what we assign to it. 
FWIW, here are the top books assigned in English Literature courses at universities and colleges today:
The top 10 works of fiction are:
Frankenstein
The Canterbury Tales
Paradise Lost
Heart of Darkness
The Yellow Wallpaper
Prufrock and Other Observations
The Story of an Hour
A Rose for Emily
Hamlet
Jane Eyre
That list makes me wonder if by “great” we really mean “prototypical” or “groundbreaking”.
I’m not sure how many of those count but isn’t Western Canon a thing? Someone up-thread (I forgot who…sorry) mentioned that there is a value to a common artistic culture (e.g. everyone knows Romeo and Juliet).
That’s not really accurate, or at least, not the whole picture. Very few “great” books were unpopular when they were published. George Eliot, for example, was a highly successful as an author, and her books were widely popular. Silas Marner may read like slow death today, but people loved it back in the 1860s. And that makes it significant, because stuff that was popular in 1860 influences what gets written in 1890, which influences what gets written in 1920, and so on until you arrive at whatever constitutes contemporary literature.
To a large extent, that’s exactly what it means. Remember when Pulp Fiction came out, and everyone was talking about how amazing it was, and then the rest of the '90s was filled with forgettable Pulp Fiction clones? It’s basically the same thing. Someone writes a novel in 1860, and everybody loses their mind over “pastoral realism,” and you get a decade or two of books full of pastoral realism that are all completely forgotten by the 1900s. By the 1950s, people are looking back a century and wondering, “What’s up with all this pastoral realism back then?” Which is a valid question about a major cultural influence in an important period in history. And that’s how we end up reading Silas Marner in high school.
SInce I am reading War and Peace again I’ll put this year. Liked it the first time, liking it again (hated Anna Karenina, agree completely with the poster above. By the time I got to the end I wanted to throw her under the train myself . )
But try to find a negative review, I looked at a number of sites and reviews by scholars and critics and could not find any in that echo chamber. Finally found on in NY TImes called Throw Anna from the Train . Paywalled and I can’t read it anymore, forgot the details.
But what I wanted to ask was, in War and Peace, at least three times in the first three books, Tolstoy describes Prince Vasily taking someone’s hand and drawing it downward. What does this mean, I assume it’s a literal description.
I disagree with you.