I was made to read The Scarlet Letter in high school. I didn't like it mainly because I didn't care for the premise. As I read through it, there was nothing really in the story that I found compelling or that made the premise interesting. Sure, Hester is an admirable woman, but that doesn't really make me interested in the story. I thought Dimmesdale was a contemptible coward and Chillingworth was just kind of...there. Overall, there was nothing in the story that appealed to me. Also it was slower than trying to pour frozen molasses.
And before anybody accuses me of disliking it just because it's an "old" book or something to that effect, I read and enjoyed Dante's Inferno about two years before I read The Scarlet Letter (I had planned to read Purgatory and Paradise as well but alas, life got in the way) and I also liked Poe's stories and poems.
I have to return some videotapes. My WallThe Divine Comedy was one hell of a book.
I did try to read TSL, but only finished a third of it. It felt too tedius.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.

On this day I stumbled upon a topic elsewhere about "The Worst Books Ever." One poster, when describing his utter disdain for Michae L Crichton's "Micro", listed several other apparently infamously unpopular books as being better than it. These included Atlas Shrugged, Ulysses, The Giver and finally, The Scarlet Letter.
Now, at least three of those are 'classics" and The Giver was standard reading in my middle school for some classes.
I brought up this list and somehow it came back to The Catcher in the Rye, possibly the most hated "old book" I know of.
I know of why people dislike "Catcher" but what's wrong with The Scarlet Letter?