You don't see classic literature as classic material, simply because you're out of it's time. It's not classic just because somebody thought it was genius, or because it would remain applicable and amusing for all the ages to come (that's a rediculous statement one should never make, since we can't predict the future). Their considered classics because at their time, or shortly after, they were extremely popular and set a specific movement to a specific age. Shakespeare's works, for instance, are considered to be classics because his plays set the pillars for contemporary drama. Some are considered classics, because the works are out of their time, which means they succeed their respective audience, and are either found to be extremely controversial for their time, or unappreciated, but later on are found by someone who popularizes them.
Basically, that's the whole thing behind all this classics fuss. I understand you to an extent, but the mistake you make in reading and trying to interpret classical literature is that you go into it thinking that it will be like contamporary literature, fast-paced and all, and that's a mistake. A great portion of attention was paid to small details back in the day, which may break the flow, or make the piece seem extremely boring. Just try to put yourself in a completely unbiased state of mind when you start reading, and don't try to compare it to modern-day literature, and I suppose you may make it a bit easier on yourself.
Personally I enjoy most classical works, and it's my favourite genre (if I can even call it a genre), because if you look hard enough, you can catch a glimpse of the genius that brought them up and kept them alive till today.
