I'm half with you here. I agree that there's an element of randomness in what becomes established as a classic or as a work of art. However, HG Wells wrote incredibly compelling and engaging stories (I haven't read Lovecraft or Verne yet). Wells is actually a really good contrast to the authors I've been complaining about in that his stories are very readable. I can blast through one of his books in a day or two and end it knowing that it's changed me in some way. When I finished The Time Machine, for example, I actually felt sad that humanity had lost the time traveler.
Wells is also a really good contrast to Melville and Moby Dick. For whatever reason, Melville wrote wonderful chapters and then felt the need to end them bogging down the reader with some ridiculously dense and opaque prose. I loved the whole book except for the last two pages of each chapter. Hard to read does not equate to genius, and the best authors find a way to make their point while also keeping the reader engaged.
There's usually a reason a book is considered a classic, but that does not mean it's perfect, that it's for everyone, or that there aren't excellent books not considered "classic."