Books/characters/authors that are misunderstood and thus disliked? Wuthering Heights, Catcher in the Rye, etc.

I see a lot of hate for books or authors because people misunderstand the book or the intention of the writer. For instance, some readers believe that writers try to make a case for people they like or views they believe in. But I think of writers more as lawyers, defending whoever, but always trying to do a great job. I'm not saying the other kind does not exist. Sure, some writers who are politically motivated for instance, might only write about how certain groups have been mistreated or how women's rights have been ignored and so on. But generally, and I'm specifically talking about fiction, just because someone make a psychopath the "hero" of the story does not mean they are psychopathic or have no morals.

There are other kinds of misunderstandings too and I'm not sure where the blame lies in these cases. Like with Wuthering Heights, and people going in expecting some kind of beautiful romance and instead getting a lot of violence and pain. Or when characters are misunderstood, like people not having sympathy for Holden in Catcher in the Rye (his transition to adulthood, dealing with loss, personal mental health issues), focusing instead of his unpleasant attitude and behavior.

I've come across the same thing also with people thinking categorizing a book as a classic means it's the same as every other classic. But books do not become classics for the same reason. Though some are beautiful and very enjoyable to read, others are celebrated because of their experimental nature or for historical or political reasons. So you will see The Great Gatsby on the same list that contains a very different book like Ulysses, The Bible, and The Aeneid, which are very different from each other.