Vintage Tales discussion

The definition of a "classic" can be a hotly debated topic. Depending on what you read, or the experience of the person you question on the topic, you may receive a wide range of answers. So, what is a "classic"--in the context of books and literature?

- A classic usually expresses some artistic quality--an expression of life, truth, and beauty.
- A classic stands the test of time. The work is usually considered to be a representation of the period in which it was written; and the work merits lasting recognition.
-A classic has a certain universal appeal. Great works of literature touch us to our very core beings--partly because they integrate themes that are understood by readers from a wide range of backgrounds and levels of experience.
- A classic makes connections. You can study a classic and discover influences from other writers and other great works of literature. Of course, this is partly related to the universal appeal of a classic.

I guess there is a 'time limit' to when a 'classic' is deemed a 'classic'. I personally view books that are popular, but were written before 1970 to be a classic.

What are your views on this?

Interesting question. I would agree with you. I think those four points define the genre very well, although I think the single most important factor is the test of time. Not just because those books may represent a different period of time, but because they speak to people across generations. A true classic is just as relevant to a modern reader as to the audience in the time it was written, although contexts may have changed.

I also find it a bit problematic to put specific dates on when something is a classic or not, but there has to be some consideration of date, else the test of time can't be passed! I think my point is that any date we put on it shouldn't be immutable. So at this point in time pre-1970's feels about right to me, even though 20 years ago it would have been pre-1950's.

The idea of a specific date is definitely interesting. I personally, can never see myself calling The Hunger Games or the Harry Potter series classics, because I've grown up with them. To me, they're modern texts, but then again, a lot of time hasn't passed since they've been published, perhaps my view on them will changed over time.

It will be interesting to see if books we rave about today will become classics, especially since there's been a move towards YA fiction so much recently.

I think that your second definition is the best one, Holly. If I've misunderstood any of the definitions, I hope you'll let me know.

Though it's undeniable that a classic expresses some artistic quality, many other stories which we probably wouldn't consider classics do too. I am currently reading a collection of genre-building cyberpunk short stories, most of which are artistically gorgeous. I don't think any of them deserve to be called classics though.

With the third point as well I think it's possible not to be universally appealing, not to be something we can all empathise with, and still be a classic. I recently read a short story by an Osakan author named Oda Sakunosuke in which he explained ordinary life for an ordinary Osakan during the post WWI era. There were of course parts in it with which I could relate, but the parts that make this a classic for me are the parts with which I can't relate. It was representative of Osaka's particular way of life at a particular time - it met your second definition.

I think the same way about the final point (on connections). It isn't connections which make a classic, because everything is connected, yet not everything is a classic. Just to be safe, a softer version: it is possible to have connections and not be a classic.

The second definition covers all the bases. We often hear the phrases 'modern day classic', which seems like a contradiction of terms. It's really just expressing the belief that this book will stand the test of time and that people will associate it with the times. The next question would be 'what makes something stand the test of time?' Is it only popularity? If that's true, then there's no reason Harry Potter shouldn't be considered a 'modern day classic'. To test it, a question: can you name a classic that has never been popular? Well, yes. I just mentioned that Osaka story. It's not very popular, but it's a classic to me.

Hmmm... All this writing and I didn't get anywhere. Good question.

I like this topic, but in the end I think we all define our own classics, and we shouldn't let anyone else tell us otherwise. For me, I don't mind pushing the timeline up to the modern day if it's something I think is important, or should be, to current and future readers. But culturally, our interests and values are bound to change. It reminds me of an exchange from a very bad Star Trek movie:

Kirk: You mean the profanity? That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you unless you swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.
Spock: For example?
Kirk: Oh the neglected works of Jacqueline Susann. The novels of Harold Robbins...
Spock: Ah, the "Giants."

I think that's very true. We hear about the 'top 50 books of all time' lists and what not, and I often agree with very few of the books on there. A lot of the time, books I class as 'classics' and that I have loved, rarely appear!

I agree with Michael and Holly. It's kind of up to us to group certain novels as classics or not. There are obviously quite a few that are generally regarded as classic (anything by Dickens, Austen, the Bronte sisters, Homer, Dante Aligheri, etc.), but then there are some like To Kill A Mockingbird that, while not written as early as Dickens or Austen, many people would still consider a classic. I can easily see how the Harry Potter series will end up being considered classics one day. Right now, they're still pretty recent, but I wouldn't be surprised to see teenagers still reading them a hundred years from now (if there are still people that read books, anyway, haha).

I think the princess bride is a classic and the film is a cult classic too! Great book.

Holly, I couldn't agree more, especially considering that Fifty shades of crap is a bestseller!

We were actually debating the idea of a 'best-seller' in Creative Writing today. Ultimately, most books that appear on the best-sellers list follow a certain plan: conformist, relatable themes, simple writing. I got seriously angry at this because the books that are best sellers shouldn't be best sellers. The idea of literature being conformist frustrates me immensely.

Fifty Shades only became popular because it was non-conformist: it was basically the 'first' modern erotic novel. But everything else, it followed. To me, that's what separates potential classics from best-sellers - they talk about things that shouldn't really be talked about, and is well written. Hence why I don't consider Fifty Shades a potential best seller. I've heard the writing is awful. But thinking about it, many classics we regard as classics today are about things that weren't talked about: To Kill a Mockingbird highlighted racism in the legal system, 1984 showed the issues with increased surveillance. To me, the whole point of literature is to make a change, and that's what a lot of modern books aren't doing.

Modern writers seem more interested in money. Many of them, anyway. I love Stephen King because he has created a lot of original ideas. Formula fiction makes me mad. I cannot stand the authors who, yes, have written twenty-something books, but they are all the same because that is what sells.

Indeed!

Lissa wrote: "Modern writers seem more interested in money. Many of them, anyway. I love Stephen King because he has created a lot of original ideas. Formula fiction makes me mad. I cannot stand the authors who,..."

I'm afraid that also ancient writers were interested in money! Read the autobiography by Anthony Trollope!

Oh they all were I think. What about Charles Dickens, who worked himself to death, for fear of becoming like his father who was incarcerated in a debtors' prison?

Dickens' character Wilkins Micawber in David Copperfield was modelled on John Dickens. I love this well-known quote,

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."

That is a fantastic quote, Jean, which I'd never heard before. Thank you :)

You are very welcome, Michaelx :)

Holly wrote: "We were actually debating the idea of a 'best-seller' in Creative Writing today. Ultimately, most books that appear on the best-sellers list follow a certain plan: conformist, relatable themes, sim..."

I totally agree with you. The best sellers are best sellers only because they appeal to the wider population and not specifically to dedicated readers. Case in point: the Twilight saga and Fifty Shades of Grey. But if one wants a taste of real literature in the present times one should try The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton. Luminaries revives the beauty in language and storytelling. I have not read her previous novel: The Rehearsal but I hope to eventually.

LauraT wrote: "Lissa wrote: "Modern writers seem more interested in money. Many of them, anyway. I love Stephen King because he has created a lot of original ideas. Formula fiction makes me mad. I cannot stand th..."

I'm sure they all were to some degree or another, but most authors who wrote novels that are widely known and accepted as classics didn't sacrifice originality for the sake of appealing to the masses. Thomas Hardy was struggling to write to put food on the table, but he didn't write novels just because he knew they would appeal to the masses. Jude the Obscure and Tess of the d'Urbervilles were both banned and I believe Jude was even burned and he knew he was writing something that would create some amount of controversy, but satisfied his desire to address what he saw as social issues. Those are classics and will probably continue to stand the test of time, whereas Twilight will probably only be remembered because it became a movie and because of the who knows how many other vampire books that were quickly written by authors who knew writing something that resembled Twilight would earn them a quick buck somewhere. I doubt Twilight would be remembered for silly things like exceptional writing or the unique development of the characters.

Lissa wrote: "I'm sure they all were to some degree or another, but most authors who wrote novels that are widely known and accepted as classics didn't sacrifice originality for the sake of appealing to the masses. "
I see your point. Still I think it all depends from the writers more than from the age. For example Philip Roth I don't think sacrifices a lot for the benefit of public taste.

Age has something to do with it, I think. Do you think very many books would get written if people had to write them with a quill and ink like they used to? It'd be far easier to find another mode of living, I would think. You'd have to be really, really passionate about what you had to say to write by hand (especially if you are a woman living in a time when writing to live was nearly unheard of and largely frowned upon). It's that kind of passion on the part of the author that draws me to what they've written. It's easier to write now than it used to be. That's not to say that amount of love for writing and drive to publish is completely lacking in all modern authors. I imagine Stephen King would be a writer no matter what century we threw him into, for example.

Hmm. I think we need to be careful not to idolise our authors Lissa. There's going to be an enormous variety in how they perceive public opinion. Also the most "impassioned" ones are not necessarily the greatest ones. Nor do I think their attitude to money has much to do with their worth as a writer.

Thomas Hardy? Of course he was bothered about money! He loved nothing better when he started making a bit of money and increasing his social position than to be invited to dinner with the nobs at the "big house" (Athelhampton House) where his father had worked as a stonemason.

There have been quite a few biographies about him. Here's a quote from the most recent, Claire Tomalin's Thomas Hardy "He had been driven by ambition, determined to succeed in society... to write books many people would read, to marry up, to have worldly friends, to make money - and he had done it all." This describes his position after the publication of "Jude the Obscure." Yes, it was burned - by the Bishop of Wakefield. This only served to increase the novel's popularity. 20,000 copies were sold in the first 3 months. Hardy was quite rich by now, with several well-to-do properties, so he could afford to stop writing novels. And he did, concentrating on poetry for the next 33 years until his death. He had been forced to make a living through fiction, but always regarded his novels as inferior to his poetry.

(And yes, I love his novels. "Jude the Obscure" is on my favourites shelf!)

I don't necessarily idolize them, but I do respect how much more they had to work to be able to make a living off writing. I'm not saying they were all spectacular people whose love of writing made them flawless and irreproachable, but they had to be willing to put more of themselves into their writing than you typically have to today. And when I talk about the writers whose motivation is rooted in the desire to make money today, I am mostly looking at formula fiction writers and the ones who tend to write about the same thing over and over again. Hardy stopped writing when Jude the Obscure was so heavily criticized and opposed by critics and much of society as well as the negative impact that it had on his marriage because his wife thought that he had no respect for it after reading what he had written. In addition to that, Tess of the d'Urbervilles had also lost him some support when it was written. It wasn't simply because he had enough money to live on and no longer needed to write novels.

True, Hardy was very influenced by his wife at the time. (It's a shame he only seemed to care about - in fact idolise in poetry - his first wife after she died...) And critical opinion always mattered to him. These are good points. I oversimplified somewhat.

Nevertheless he was very ambivalent about his novels, saying something like their true worth only lay in where they had a poetic quality. I think if he had been "impassioned" about novel-writing rather than poetry, he would not have been able to stop writing them for 33 years!

The salient point seems to be what you say about "formulaic fiction", and I think here we are getting back to Holly's original thoughts in this thread. Formulaic fiction can never by definition be classic, in my opinion, whenever it was written.

A best-seller is not necessarily going to be a classic. Some of our classics were written to pay the bills, but many other best-sellers of their day have (happily) been forgotten because ultimately they did not have much literary worth. So the classic novels you refer to, where writers have put "more of themselves into their writing" are not really comparable with the formulaic writers of today. And we have yet to learn which of the rest are destined to be classics, with the benefit of hindsight.

Who is deleted user? just curious. I think a classic is something that is well written that will stand the test of time and that others enjoy. That's just my opinion though. The Princess Bride to me is a classic as well as The Eyes of the dragon by Stephen King, Little Women, Edgar Allan Poe, and Little House in the big woods by Laura Ingalls wilder is a classic too.

Amber wrote: "Who is deleted user? just curious. I think a classic is something that is well written that will stand the test of time and that others enjoy. That's just my opinion though. The Princess Bride to m..."

I loved The princess bride, but I don't know if I'd define it a classic; more so Little House in the big woods

Sometimes the word 'classic' is used interchangeably with 'Western cannon', but that is limiting and highlights one of the problems with finding a definition.

'Western cannon' - what does that mean? The term Western is a relatively new one, if I'm not mistaken, which refers to Western Europe, from West Berlin, so would exclude Russia and therefore Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, et al. A definition which excludes Dostoevsky does not have my vote.

During the early development of the novel, for female writers at least, it was one of the 'respectable occupations' in which they could earn an independent living - so, many of the 19th century novels now deemed classics were written under such circumstances

We all have to earn a living, even those with a knack for writing and nothing else.

Anthony Trollope is correct in his autobiography, why should he starve just because he's a writer? And why should he not practice and exercise himself like other professional such as lawyers and doctors.

Is it wrong of a professional, experienced writer to produce X amount of words daily to reach his deadlines and keep himself, wife and children in food and with a roof over their heads?

The lists I too have seen include the Russians, but what I'm saying is that the term shouldn't allow it.

The term West doesn't include Russia in any of the definitions I can think of.
Economical: communism and capitalism
Religious: eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism
Geographical: the western hemisphere and the eastern hemisphere
Cultural differences are significant too.

Anyway, even if we did make an exception for Russia (or found a legitimate reason to include Russia), the term 'Western Cannon' is limiting because it excludes (well, should exclude) anything a Western author doesn't write. But there is nothing in the definition of 'classic' that excludes, say, an Asian author. Anyone can write a classic.

It being cannon, too, I don't suppose you can add anymore to it, though maybe that's not right.

If it's not the new version of the term, which version are we using in 'Western Cannon'?

Really the opinion I'm trying (and failing) to say is this: Western Cannon ≠ classic.

I don't get what western canon is. does the word even matter in classic literature? just curious. I just think a classic is something that is well-written that others enjoy.

Maybe I've missed the target, Amber. I thought Western Cannon was considered to be 'classics'. Like two ways of expressing the same thing.

I'm not for sure Michaelx as I don't read that many classics anyway. I just read fiction and different genres in it. I didn't know what western cannon was so that is why I asked.

Most definitions are pretty ambiguous, but it is a collection of works which have influenced and shaped Western culture.

Oh okay. :)

Ah, then I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Malcolm wrote: "During the early development of the novel, for female writers at least, it was one of the 'respectable occupations' in which they could earn an independent living - so, many of the 19th century nov..."

I wasn't criticising, simply stating a fact!
A classic is not a book written not thinking about money, but a good book, read and appreciated years and years later than the period in which it was written. That's what I think!

But surely you are both correct, Malcolm and Laura? You are just coming at this from different angles.

Malcolm said, "We all have to earn a living, even those with a knack for writing and nothing else." Absolutely true, and if you can make a living from it then good luck to you. Some can, some can't. It's nothing to do with whether your work is deemed to be "classic" though.

Laura said, "A classic is not a book written not thinking about money, but a good book, read and appreciated years and years later than the period in which it was written." Again, I doubt whether any of us would dispute this, although some may want to add extra "conditions" in their definition of a classic.

Introducing money into the mix just confuses it, as it cannot be relevant to any definition!! Looking back, the first time it was mentioned was by "deleted user" who said, "Modern writers seem more interested in money." I don't know why she left Goodreads, (and hopefully it's nothing to do with this thread) but in my opinion she cannot have been referring to classics, but merely to formulaic fiction. We were moving towards an agreement on this before she left, I think. Lissa, if you return, please can you comment?

Holly - where are you? We don't want this to descend into fisticuffs!! :D

Jean wrote: "But surely you are both correct, Malcolm and Laura? You are just coming at this from different angles.

Malcolm said, "We all have to earn a living, even those with a knack for writing and nothing ..."

All of the Bronte novels were written with money in mind. At first, Charlotte was the least successful with The Professor.

Now, they wrote to earn a living and to prove that they could produce any pulp equal to the best of male writers. They certainly managed that.

Ah, now I understand Malcolm; you are being provocative. My loathing for "Wuthering Heights" is well known, so I'm certainly not one to take up the cudgels here!

And one of the things I particularly object to, by the way, is lumping three authors' works together as a sort of mass product. I am not getting at you, by the way. This seems to be a standard view.

I think we are saying exactly the same thing: a good book - a classic in this case - can be written, is often written hoping to earn something. That doesn't make it a better or a worse book.
I don't think that money matters influences the virtue of a book: Stephen King is not better or worse than charles Dickens because he likes his books to sell. Dickens was a best selling author in his times. Trollope as well.

I agree :)

Jean wrote: "Ah, now I understand Malcolm; you are being provocative. My loathing for "Wuthering Heights" is well known, so I'm certainly not one to take up the cudgels here!

And one of the things I particula..."

No, I'm not being provocative. Just stating the facts. I'm not lumping anyone one together. Just pointing out the sister's individual works as an example of woman writers having to earn a living and although they were not all appreciated when living, their works are now deemed classics.

If you have a problem with Wuthering Heights it is nothing to do with me. And why should I know you have a problem with it. It's well known only to those who know you, surely.

LauraT wrote: "I think we are saying exactly the same thing: a good book - a classic in this case - can be written, is often written hoping to earn something. That doesn't make it a better or a worse book.
I do..."

That's what I was implying in my intitial comments but just using examples from periods earlier then the 20th century.

Jean wrote: "But surely you are both correct, Malcolm and Laura? You are just coming at this from different angles. ..."

I think you are reading too much into the debate. I certainly was not arguing with Laura.

I was simply writing my opinion taking into consideration anything which has already been said on the matter.

My comment was with reference with whoever it was referred to Anthony Trollope, who certainly had a knack for writing. And I agreed with what he wrote in his autobiography about writing, professionalism, and whether someone should starve simply because their work is deemed by others as an 'art' rather then a professional such as a doctor, lawyer or cobbler.

LauraT wrote: I wasn't criticising, simply stating a fact!
A classic is not a book written not thinking about money, but a good book, read and appreciated years and years later than the period in which it was written. That's what I think! ..."

Likewise, I wasn't criticizing your observation in comment 13. In fact I was agreeing with you with regards to Trollope and the need for a writer to earn a living as much as any other professional.

Wow, Malcolm 4 messages? OK then so you are not trying to ignite the oil I was pouring on troubled waters after all? LOL

Er.. you DO know me! Maybe you have not got as far as reading my review of "Wuthering Heights", but most of my other Goodreads friends have and I bang on about it so much that it's a bit of a standing joke here (Somebody back me up please!) and although it has a serious basis, in that my opinion is genuine, I know most of the banter is just that, and I do not mind it at all!

I must admit that I had assumed you picked those authors especially for me... sorry if you feel you do not know me quite that well yet :)

Jean wrote: "Wow, Malcolm 4 messages? OK then so you are not trying to ignite the oil I was pouring on troubled waters after all? LOL

Er.. you DO know me! Maybe you have not got as far as reading my review o..."

Jean, I met you last week. That hardly counts as an intimate acquaintance.

No, I picked those authors because I read them and I like to comment upon things which I know about.

I'm surprised anyone writes anything here if just by commenting upon a topic means that others are to suggest that they are taking cudgels, igniting oils or whatever.

I've said nothing about Wuthering Heights for anyone to get their underwear in a twist about. However, if you dislike it then good for you. I and many others like it, but I doubt if we'd want to argue the toss about it. Life's too short.

I would love to read your review of "Wuthering Heights" Malcolm, especially since it is something you rate highly. You do not seem to have posted your opinions in a review yet though.

At least one other book group is currently reading and discussing it. ("All About Books", which quite a few of us belong to) and it seems to have yet again proved to be a so-called "marmite" book. If it was a favourite of mine I would certainly want to share more of my views there. (I've just "called in" now and then; I don't want to spoil anyone's enthusiasm.) Isn't that what we are doing here?

What I enjoy about Goodreads is the chance to discuss books in a friendly environment. If we really thought life was too short to discuss this sort of thing we would not be part of Goodreads, and the various book groups, would we?

But for some reason my lighthearted attempts at defusing a potentially difficult situation seem to have misfired. If I have offended you with my sense of fun, Malcolm then I apologise. :)

Jean, I read Wuthering Heights several decades ago. Any review would be retrospective and I would not have the confidence to say anything other than I liked it, it was challenging and innovative.

If I should write any reviews of books on goodreads then it will have to be the books I have read since joining.

I can only read one novel at a time, what with other things in my life which needs attention.

I'm currently reading Mary Barton, I have 28 chapters to go before I complete it.

I'm not quite sure if I want to re-read Wuthering Heights to discuss with any group, if the people who dislike the book in question is going to get all het up about someone's comments if they should actually like the novel which is the subject of the topical debate.

Malcolm - I hope you enjoy "Mary Barton" as much as I did. I think I told you last week how incredibly moving I found it. Those impoverished characters could have been my ancestors. It's one of my rare 5* books, but like you, I only review books I have read or reread recently, to make sure I am being fair.

It's hard nowadays to get the time we want and need to read lengthy books, I agree.

And I have been reading your piece on "Literary Adaptations" in your blog from 9th. I too wish TV adaptations would include a broader selection, rather than the same few "classic novels" - however good they are. There's so much more to choose from as you say.

Perhaps you could expand on that here? I personally did not know some of the examples of novels you gave.

Malcolm wrote: "LauraT wrote: I wasn't criticising, simply stating a fact! ...
Likewise, I wasn't criticizing your observation in comment 13. In fact I was agreeing with you with regards to Trollope and the need for a writer to earn a living as much as any other professional. ."

As I said: we do agree!!!!