15 Scathing Early Reviews of Classic Novels

There are some literary classics that are near unimpeachable. We’re thinking Lolita, Ulysses, The Great Gatsby: the best of the best. Except that they’re decidedly not unimpeachable — or at least they weren’t when they first hit bookshelves. These books and many others that are now considered masterpieces got their fair share of scathing reviews when they first came out, and in reputable publications no less. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but we can’t help having this to say to these brutal reviewers: ha, ha. Click through to read 15 harshly negative early reviews of classic novels, and feel free to register your outrage (or your agreement) in the comments.

Lolita, then, is undeniably news in the world of books. Unfortunately, it is bad news. There are two equally serious reasons why it isn’t worth any adult reader’s attention. The first is that it is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid and archly fatuous fashion. The second is that it is repulsive.” — Orville Prescott, The New York Times, 1958

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Mostly off the mark but literature is a very subjective thing. I personally disliked Catcher In The Rye for reasons different to the reviewer (plenty of people I know feel the same about Ulysses). On the other hand I can agree with the reviewer on American Psycho but still enjoy it. All down to personal taste. Which is why I rarely bother to read what critics write!

Boy, I've got to say that the reviews in the NYT for Catch-22 and Catcher in the Rye (is the catch a coincidence? I think not!) were right on! Perfectly explain why these two titles remain out of reach for the above average reader.

This just goes to show how arbitrarily one defines a "classic." It has nothing to do with how it's seen in its time, but how university professors and random intellectuals see it later. I just hope in 100 years, people don't see Twilight and Fifty Shades as classic literature.

I haven't read everyone of these books, but I have to say that I agree with a good deal of these reviews. I love classic literature, but some classics shouldn't have died long ago.

Kate Chopin, a "classic novel"?? This constant reader never heard it mentioned. As for Ulysses, pure tripe.

I was so relieved to read the review of Wuthering Heights - I've had to read that book 3 times for various literature classes throughout my college career, and my hatred of it increased with each read. I tried to like it, but - how a human being could even read the first twelve chapters without at least seriously considering suicide is beyond me. I register my astonishment alongside Graham's Lady's Magazine that Bronte managed to write the whole thing without jumping off a bridge.

and then there's the blistering review of Les Miserables -- the book -- from 1862, by The Atlantic. Hope the url lets me post it. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/classrev/lesmisfa.htm

I am interested in the books the critics love, you know, the ones "that speak for our generation" that are supposed to be a "voice that touches our present situation", and the like, only for the book itself to die on the vine. Anyone got any examples?

Although I cannot. fully agree with the reviews, I do think that "Catcher...", "The great Gatsby" and especially "Catch-22" don't belong amongst the greatest books. Maybe it's a cultural difference, because I've met many europeans who don't keep them in high esteem, whereas they are classics overseas. I'm surprised that you didn't mention Proust's "A la recherche...".

Critics don't speak for public opinion do they. The public knows what they like. It's fortunate these books made it past the critics to become classics. I wonder how many have died under a critics hand. It's encouraging to know that literature can find it's place and time beyond critics.

Perhaps Lolita is dull (?) for many modern readers but it’s beautifully written by one of the most intellectual writers. I’m sure people will argue about this book for many years. On the contrary books likes 50 Shades of Gray will be easily forgotten (sorry).

Lolita was dull? I'm glad I don't know you, Pedzo.

Don't you think it's funny how really great, truly truly great books draw such hatred from reviewers. About everyday ordinary books reviewers can usually find something nice to say, and often say only those mildly nice things that constitute the bulk of reviewers, but genuine masterpieces tend to upset the hell out of a class of people who are usually mild as a mode of survival: newspaper critics.

Agree with reviewer of Catcher in the Rye which I recently read for the first time at age 64- A lot of sound and turgid fury signifying little, except that it shocked 1950's sensibilities. Now its all old hat. Also agree with Ulysees which I have tried and failed to read at least a dozen times-humourless.

I couldn't agree more with the review of Lolita. I found it mind numbingly dull.

Books are largely subjective, and how good a book is depends on what the reader can get out of it. And yes, some of the classics, like Ulysses in particular, have drawn some vicious criticism over the years. I know people who very staunchly maintain that Moby Dick is not worthy of its stature. Personally, I don't think Catcher in the Rye is all it's made out to be. Ultimately you can't tell someone what book they should or should not read. As long it's a good read for you, it doesn't really have to please anyone else. 50 years down the line, 50 shades of grey could be on a similar list, however much it may get panned today.

They were right about Moby Dick though.

Agree about American Psycho, I think it's an intellectual bluff. It aspires to be high literature masquerading as a pornographic slasher, when it is in fact the opposite. I agree that most of the other reviews miss the mark, although I actually found it refreshing to see extremely critical takes on classics. They aren't sacrosanct, they're just books!

Just happen to be reading American Psycho now and agree with the above review. I want to like it, but Ellis' attempt at portraying mindless, 80's-era consumerism by way of endlessly inane banter becomes mindless itself. The rest of the books on this list - especially Lolita - stand the test of time. Would read any of these books a hundred times over instead of Twilight, 50 Shades or any other dross being published today.

American Psycho? Have you folks lost your minds?

L.A.G. Strong simply missed the pitch. Aldous Huxley knew he was, "a man standing beside a midden, shuddering and holding his nose." What bothered him was why others would attend the same midden without shuddering and holding their nose.

And the American Psycho review still stands up. Prescient.

You threw in the 'American Psycho' one to see if we were paying attention. Nice touch.