But we're talking about "the classics", which in practice is generally just the name we use for "acclaimed books that are old". And by that definition, they're not a monolith. There are boring books and exciting books, challenging books and super accessible books. Emile Zola is nothing like Mary Shelley, who is nothing like P.G. Wodehouse, who is nothing like Albert Camus. We're talking about centuries worth of literature that is broad and diverse in scope, subject, and execution.

And I think there's also a distinction to be made between "literary fiction" as a modern genre that publishers use to categorize their books (generally about dysfunctional white people, or people of color specifically writing about their trauma and marginalization), and "literary merit" as a quality of a work (which can be found in all sorts of books in all sorts of genres).