Dunno -- I got it in high school, and it's one of the few "class" books that have stayed with me through the years. I'd say On the Road, A smattering of Shakespeare, and 1984 did that as well.

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

You can't look at modern life without seeing that.

I think it's the 18th and 19th century tomes that are tough sledding in high school a lot of the time; many like Moby Dick and much of Dickens are pretty long in addition to the somewhat archaic language.

There are exception like The Picture of Dorian Gray although that's very late 19th century--and, of course, Wilde is very accessible.

ADDED: In general, I don't think I read any, but both Fitzgerald and Hemingway seem pretty reasonable for a high school English class. Probably better choices than the like of Catcher in the Rye and A Separate Peace to be honest.

Obviously everyone is different, but (aside from Shakespeare) the two books I read in HS that I most liked were Cather in the Rye and A Tale of Two Cities. I should note that after liking A Tale of Two Cities so much, I tried David Copperfield and Oliver Twist and found neither to my liking. I had my great expectations of Dickens' other work rather crushed at that point.

Oh, and forcing anyone to read Melville should be a crime. A very few people I know loved the experience, but I was unable to finish Billy Bud much less Moby Dick.

I recall not caring much for A Tale of Two Cities. I keep thinking I should try other Dickens like Bleak House. I do enjoy some other Victorian authors--at least the few best-regarded books I've tried like Wilkie Collins and Anthony Trollope.

I vaguely recall not liking Billy Bud in high school although I read Moby Dick as an adult and was mostly glad I worked my way through but it did take an effort.

I don't think I hated Catcher in the Rye at the time. It just didn't make much of an impression one way or the other.

I really loved Great Expectations.

Also Britten's Billy Budd is one of the 2 operas I really love.

1966 BBC version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1lVBfqQyjs

My sixth grade teacher made us read The Hobbit.

The rest is history. I'm a voracious reader of "junky" fantasy books.

But Mencken was a real wordsmith -albeit a really, really cynical one.

> and, under it all, the simple sentimentality of a somewhat sclerotic fat woman.

My dad read me The Hobbit as a bedtime story starting from kindergarten. It was the first non-picture book I ever read.

The BBC's In Our Time discussed Gatsby last year. The guests had a great comment: at the time the story in Gatsby was considered trashy and not worthy of a great novel. It would be as if a great modern author wrote a novel about the Kardashians. Today's readers don't have that problem and can enjoy the great writing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000r4tq

I care more about the content of the story than any quality of writing. Beautifully captured footage of an automated waste treatment facility in the middle of nowhere is far less compelling than, E.G. low quality traffic cam views that happen to capture timely or educationally useful content.

There's more than enough books vying to be classics; do future readers a favor and select one that fulfills BOTH criteria; Well Written and Interesting to Read.

Interestingly, the same thing was said about Madame Bovary.

I was lucky enough to read it (I think for the first time) in an American Lit of the 20s class I took on the side in grad school. The professor, who I knew well, was a Fitzgerald and Hemingway scholar. It's too bad classes weren't routinely recorded back then.

As an adult it’s quite fun to re-read all of the books I “hated” in high school. They’re so much more enjoyable!

I hated Gatsby in high school and when I re-read it as an adult, I still didn't like it. None of the characters were interesting to me and when you don't care what happens to them, it's a chore to keep reading.

There were some books in high school that I really enjoyed that I'm afraid to reread because maybe they wouldn't stand up for me. I'm thinking about Lost Horizon, The Chrysalids, Brave New World, Canticle for Leibowitz, On the Beach, and Grapes of Wrath.

I've read all of those except for On the Beach. I probably wouldn't reread Grapes of Wrath but not because of any dislike--in fact the opposite for both book and film. I'd reread any of the others though I would probably be more inclined to rewatch the 1937 Lost Horizon film. It's a marvelous story but there's nothing particularly exceptional about Hilton's prose as I recall from reading a few of his books decades ago.

I didn't read Grapes of Wrath until I was an adult, but I certainly found it worthwhile. Same for Canticle.

I did read Brave New World in high school, but it didn't do anything for me until I re-read it a couple years ago.

> Lost Horizon

I liked this one when I read it years ago, but when I tried to re-read it aloud to one of my kids[1] I discovered that most of Hilton's characters' dialog read exactly the same—they have no voice—plus the prose was really clunky to read—uniquely so among the oddball books I read aloud to my young kids, and I read them some a lot older than that, plus a couple contemporary to Hilton's book, so it's not an age-of-the-writing problem. It was so unpleasant to read aloud that I didn't make it past the first chapter. Really soured me on the book.

[1] Hey, when they're young enough, it hardly matters what you're reading to them, may as well be something you want to read, unless you're reading them a picture book.

[EDIT] LOL, actually, now that I think about it, Gatsby was another one I read aloud to one of my kids. No problems with that one.

There is/was about an 8 hour staged reading of The Great Gatsby called Gatz that may sound like the strangest thing ever to some but I loved it (and so did the person I dragged to it).

https://www.elevator.org/shows/gatz/

I haven't generally found that, but at least not having to read in the mode of trying to memorize all the facts for the coming quiz is an improvement.

I wish I saw what you saw. I was also fortunate not to have it ruined in high school. I didn't read it until my 50s.

I just didn't get it. All I see is a bunch of horrible people being stupid and terrible to each other.

I don't doubt that that's a very American thing. I just don't want to read about it, no matter how well it's written.

Inconsistency note: I love doing Shakespeare, even though it's precisely a bunch of stupid people treating each other horribly, but very, very well written.

I recently read A Confederacy of Dunces, and my feeling was "Yuck. These people were all awful." I looked at reviews, and some people thought the same thing, and the others were like "Ha ha ha. These people are all awful. Isn’t this fun?"

And I was left wondering whether the two groups of people have had different life experiences. Some have had bitter experience of awful people and it'll never be something to enjoy.

That one was ruined for me in college, assigned in freshman English. I hated it so, so much. And literature in general, if that was the literature they felt was so important as to assign it.

I mentioned a love for Shakespeare in a footnote, something I developed long after high school, despite-not-because-of my high school education. I found my way into it via movies. The same happened with Jane Austen, whom I hated as dumb-people-doing-dumb-things until the right film showed me how it actually was supposed to work.

Conceivably such a thing could exist for Confederacy of Dunces, but I'm not going out of my way to find out.

I lived in New Orleans for a time and read Confederacy of Dunces. Saw it much later as a play. Think it's fantastic.

But to your basic point. I was having a conversation with a college friend about series including Orange is the New Black and others that I don't remember--possibly Breaking Bad. And they just couldn't get into a series where you were supposed to sympathize with people who were basically, well, bad to various degrees. Probably (for whatever reason) some people just don't like anti-heroes in literature or video.

There's an interesting comparison to be made between Breaking Bad and its prequel Better Call Saul. Breaking Bad very much wanted you to like its anti-hero even while being an objectively terrible person. Better Call Saul is much less about thrilling to the horrors, but instead hoping that a deeply flawed human being can get better. And he's surrounded by other people who are also good, trying to make him better, and failing.

I don't mean to oversimplify; both are complex shows with extraordinary feats of writing and acting. But I felt Better Call Saul was a more interesting take on the anti-hero because it wasn't just horrible people being mean to each other. If nothing else, comparing and contrasting the differences is a good exercise.

I realize that there is no accounting for taste, but my goodness, A Confederacy of Dunces is laugh-out-loud funny.

Similar example. I'd managed to not read it somehow until 3--4 years ago.

It is quite the yarn.