I leave it to you if this means anything. Can you think of something that would make sense? Would anti classic mean failiure or simply something that wasnt acknowledged at its time and yet by today's standard would be a great read?
Posted Apr 17, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC
If satire counts: An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews by Henry Fielding
'Out of Sheer Rage: In The Shadow of DH Lawrence' by Geoff Dyer is just hilarious, it's about Dyer trying and failing to write a biography of Lawrence and procrastinating so hard it becomes performance art.
For just a character assassination, 'The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice' by Christopher Hitchens is fabulous.
'Out of Sheer Rage: In The Shadow of DH Lawrence' by Geoff Dyer
holy shit this is great thanks
The title of your post reminds me of Catch-22.
I'd say an anti-classic would be just the opposite, a book widely celebrated in its day that didn't stand the test of time. In that case, Bulwer-Lytton would be a great example, having wild success in the 1830s with bestsellers like Godolphin and The Pilgrims of the Rhine, and continuing through the 1870s with Pausanias the Spartan - books mostly remembered now by fans of the Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest.
Conversely, Moby Dick was a critical and commercial failure from its publication in 1851 until it was resurrected as an American classic in the 1920s.
'The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy' by Sterne plays with many elements of books and stories that might have been considered to be 'classical' at the time. I think the reception to his book though was delightedness and respect so this mightn't nail your brief.