What books considered classics do you think should not be?

Teddy, You should watch that South Park episode, The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs (yes, I consider South Park classic, lol). But anyway, the general theme of that was how the kids had to read Catcher in the Rye, couldn't understand what was so great about it and set out to write their own controversial book. They wrote something gross and explicit totally as a goof and it became an instant "classic" story of angst and other such perceived greatness :) I think what makes a book classic is really all about perception. Whether it truly qualifies or not is likely relative. That being said, to add my two cents to the original question, I agree with South Park. Catcher In the Rye is just some whiny annoying teenager talking about how lame he is. If that's classic, I don't get it.

If a book made it to be a classic, then it deserves it, even if I hate it.

Two books I'd like to see go on the list of classics:

Ghetto Cowboy

The One and Only Ivan

I've always thought Hemingway and Fitzgerald are overrated. I'd put Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy on the list. They're "Harry Potter for grown-ups," very well-written with a lot going on under the surface, so to speak. You can read and enjoy them on many levels.

Hmm...that's a really good question.

I'm going to go out there and say Hemmingway's In Our Time.

Personally, I just hate Hemmingway's writing style (I know, I know, this is a really unpopular opinion amongst bookish types). I just think that his writing is kind of like a homework assignment finished in the cafeteria before class: it's basic and dull. I know that's his "thing" and that it's what's "unsaid" that counts, I just don't particularly care for that writing style.