However, as pointed out before, critical opinion is subjective. A more informed opinion can be better, but can not, simply can not, be right. There is no such thing.
Can, and should, critics and people well-versed in literature set the standards of what defines great works? Yes, absolutely. But, at the end of the day, if Revolutionary Road speaks to you more about middle class suburban discontent in the 1950's moreso than the more popular and critically acclaimed Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, who's to say that you are wrong to feel that way?
(I in fact find them to be completely different works on a thematic level, but that is beside the point)

Does Catcher in the Rye achieve objectively on the same level as Moby Dick? No, but I find Catcher in the Rye to be by far the more meaningful and thoughtful work for me, and written in a much more engaging style to boot.

But beyond this, i feel like we are quibbling over distinctions rather than substantive disagreements.