First, when you're young, your life experiences in the world are less varied, so you can fail to appreciate many of the more subtle interactions in those works which you pick up on when you're older. That's why the classics offer so much re-readability. You're a different person each time you read them, and bring different perceptions and knowledge to bear. It's also why fantasy and science fiction has broader appeal, especially when you're younger--the real-world experience matters less, and it is the creation of these worlds that sets much of that background context that you're missing at those ages.
Second and similarly, the more you read, the better reader you become. This applies to artistic media like movies too. I remember the difference between my ability to follow the plot in movies as a kid versus as a young adult versus as an adult. Subtext and complications not appreciated at a young age become much more apparent the more "good" stuff you watch.
Take something like "Miller's Crossing". I saw this when it first came out and focused mostly on the acting and the events unfolding, but didn't really get into the motivations and missed a couple of the implications. Watching it again more recently, a whole new level opened up. I wanted to share it with my high school kid to broaden his horizons a bit, but I realized that even those plot points I took away the first time would require explanation because he doesn't really have enough experience inferring implied motivation of characters.
It seems like the "classics" become classics because they are written to appeal to all of these levels and can be revisited many times. Perhaps introducing these at a young age simply gets that first exposure out of the way, even if all the subtext is lost.
Comments
There are a couple of things going on here.
First, when you're young, your life experiences in the world are less varied, so you can fail to appreciate many of the more subtle interactions in those works which you pick up on when you're older. That's why the classics offer so much re-readability. You're a different person each time you read them, and bring different perceptions and knowledge to bear. It's also why fantasy and science fiction has broader appeal, especially when you're younger--the real-world experience matters less, and it is the creation of these worlds that sets much of that background context that you're missing at those ages.
Second and similarly, the more you read, the better reader you become. This applies to artistic media like movies too. I remember the difference between my ability to follow the plot in movies as a kid versus as a young adult versus as an adult. Subtext and complications not appreciated at a young age become much more apparent the more "good" stuff you watch.
Take something like "Miller's Crossing". I saw this when it first came out and focused mostly on the acting and the events unfolding, but didn't really get into the motivations and missed a couple of the implications. Watching it again more recently, a whole new level opened up. I wanted to share it with my high school kid to broaden his horizons a bit, but I realized that even those plot points I took away the first time would require explanation because he doesn't really have enough experience inferring implied motivation of characters.
It seems like the "classics" become classics because they are written to appeal to all of these levels and can be revisited many times. Perhaps introducing these at a young age simply gets that first exposure out of the way, even if all the subtext is lost.