It sounds rather like the Iliad and the Odyssey, now that you mention it ... and Beowulf!
I agree that some classic literature is not likely to be of interest to most teenagers. Dickens, Hardy, Austen, the Brontes, etc., weren't writing for teenagers - these authors are considered "classic" because their books were popular with adults.
However, the Greek and Roman classics are blood-and-thunder thrillers - sex, drugs, drinking, and interspecies excitement. My teenagers really like them, especially if I read aloud. Excellent new translations have come out in the last few years.
lol. You can always count on the Romans. My point is that those works should be a part of the Roman history curriculum. Dickens is awful. Worse than water boarding. Bronte is for chicks. Never heard of the others.
I guess it comes down to the question of whether literature is a dead art or not. It's as if you had a music class and only offered classical music and jazz. It gives the impression it's a dead thing. No offense to old music, but what's wrong with bringing it up to date a little bit?
If the issue is cultural literacy (sounding smart at cocktail parties) fine, make sure they know all the know-it-all's favorite books. But otherwise, find some new stuff that might actually have something to do with current life, something that will demonstrate the usefulness of the art form, if indeed it has any usefulness.
As for Dickens, there is plenty of violence, child abuse and class warfare in his stuff. What do people want their teenagers to read in school anyway? Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew and Tom Swift hardly qualify as literature.
I am sure Chaucer would interest them quick enough.