Are Literary Classics always worthy of their status?

[Victoria]

There have been more than a few so-called classics I've read in my life that I just didn't enjoy. In fact there were a few I don't think really should be classics. I realize this is mostly a relative discussion, but someone somewhere deems these books worthy of being put on high school required reading lists across the globe under the title "classics" and I'd like to know if any of those books ever lose their coveted title?

For example, I love Charles Dickens but I quite honestly HATED Great Expectations and don't consider it one of his "classics." In my mind, how can a book be considered classic, applicable across generations and so well-crafted, if it doesn't differentiate between major plot points and insignificant details? I mean, really--was it necessary to wax eloquent for PAGES about BUTTONS?!

 

Are there any classics in literature that you've read that you think are unworthy of the title?
(And yes, I'm new to this group. Hi. :D )

[Alexandra Plance]

That leads me to think that the novels that are still worthy of being classics are those that feel the pressure to tell a rousing story, like A Christmas Carol. The timeless classics are those that have relevance not only from their themes and styles but also from their ability to make the reader need to know what happens next.

But that's what makes any book great, actually :P