Almost-great literature vs great literature

I read The Secret History by Donna Tartt. It was good, very well crafted, and addressed some universal themes about belonging, meaning, guilt and morality. But it wasn't great. Three things failed for me:

1. Narrator Richard Papen's voice. He didn't sound like a California boy, he sounded like a Wesleyan woman. I got over it in 100 pages once I was engrossed with the story, but it didn't sound true. Too floral and poetic.
2. The self-importance. A third of the way in, it was clear Tartt had a similar college experience at Bennington in VT, full of deep significance and emotional scale.
3. The lack of an historic backdrop. It's infused with the Classics, and it's a highly detailed depiction of a certain type of US college experience, but it was a fairly insular tale all said and done.

Thus my 3 criteria for great works of literature:

1. A personal yet universal human story. Tragedy, grief, heroism, mistakes, etc. Something that latches on to something inside the reader.
2. An historic canvas. It should have a scale of setting and consequence that links the personal to the political, or social, or cultural.
3. Amazing craft. It's gotta be well-structured, well-written, captivating. And it's a delicate line between truly exceptional writing that magnifies a story, and wonderful writing that overshadows the story itself (clever writing).