>Who cares?

I do? Why would I want my kids to be consuming crap when they could be engaging with great works and high art?

What if that's not the choice? What if the choice is "engage with art they enjoy and appreciate, or not at all"?

They're great works to you, and a slog to them.

They can read Minecraft strategy guides and Yahoo auction fan fics for all I care, since that's a lot better than nothing. I remember not wanting to read what school assigned me and how that killed my desire to read most fiction writing, and would prefer that not happen to more kids.

Art is a matter of taste, and if you go counter to your audience's taste, don't be surprised if they disengage.

Because what constitutes "crap" and "great works and high art" is highly subjective both to personal tastes and the culture of the time.

If the works are so great then you've got nothing to worry about. Kids will read them on their own. Of course we both know that's not true, because the works are not that great.

Jane Austen was considered pulp. So was Charles Dickens. And Conan Doyle.

Nobody considered those high literature back in the day!

That cherry picks the best of the best without comparing them with the other 99.9% of their contemporaries who were pulp authors. They and their literary output are forgotten for good reasons.

I don't think GP is cherrypicking anything; rather, illustrating how what is seen as slop one day may be seen as "great works" down the road.

Are you suggesting Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, or Conan Doyle were considered slop during their own lifetimes? If not, my point stands.