Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

How do you define a classic?

I was thinking on this and found I normally think in terms of general classics, British or Europeans authors and then group other together. So American classics, children's classic and science fiction classic among others.

How do you think of classics? Is it those such as Austen, Dickens or is it broader? And can modern classics really be though of as classics?

I consider "classics" to be books that will stand the test of time. I can think of books, both old school and contemporary, that I would read over and over again, while some books are so uninteresting that I forget about them the second I close the cover. 5 years from now I will have forgotten the name of the smut romance novel with the half-naked viking on the cover, but I will absolutely remember books like "Memoirs of a Geisha", "Vanity Fair", and "Wuthering Heights".

I think you're right. Classics contain the timeless themes. Just because a book is old, that doesn't make it a classic. I read a very fun book by Georges Sand (Chopin's lover and a very popular novelist in her day), but it was no classic. It was more like a Harlequin romance that just happened to be over a hundred years old. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is from nearly the same vintage, and it's a definite classic because it makes you think of bigger ideas than the plot of the book itself.

To me, a classic is a book that can be read, re-read and retold many times. It is original, with a distinct taste, beautifully written, with the ability to touch readers, one that makes you think about it long after you close the book. I don't think today's classics can be categorized as such. That is something future generations should decide because as T.J. said the book needs to stand the test of time.

I like all the above definitions of a classic. That means I have made some great choices in my reading, when the books I have loved for years are like old friends, and they still resonate with me. What is so great about a group like this, is that we learn from each other while reading books in depth.

A classic transcends its genre and time, to speak across the centuries to readers of another preference and age. (sort of the way Austen or Bulgakov speak to me). The best classics and beautifully plotted and characterized, and are neither blunt nor didactic in their narration. They have finesse. They are a beauty to real aloud. Something about them is lost in translation, films of them deminish their beauty,

Here is a nice definition of classic literature which certainly backs up what many of you have said:
http://classiclit.about.com/od/forbeg...

...and here is a nice read on "modern classics" defined here as those written, for the most part, after WWII:
http://classiclit.about.com/od/basics...

That said/read, a look at various lists of classics will reveal that there is not one opinion on what books should grace that list!

I think a defining characteristic of a classic is a book that can stand the test of time.

Lots of books are popular today and I love them but who knows where they will be in 20, 50 or 100 years?

Can the book translate to modern times? Romeo and Juliet for example- written in the 15th century but the story of two horny kids who think they're in love and their parents don't approve and they act impetuously and rash...
That story would work today. I loved the 1996 movie version because it kept Shakespear's words but put it in a modern setting. It was a little funny you know- like watching an old Godzilla movie where the lips don't quite match the words... but it also demonstrated how an old story can fit into modern times.
Added to that, you also do get a feel of that era.

1984 - great example of dystopia and also you understand where phrases that are an everyday part of the English language come from. We all know what "Big Brother" means, now you see where the phrase comes from. It also gives you a feel of that era when the communist threat loomed large in our fears.

To Kill a Mockingbird - a fairly recent "classic" The author is still living. Usually kind of like canonizing a saint, I'd choose books old enough that the authors are dead. But I think that one is an entertaining story, it tells a story that could reinvented for today and it also is a great snapshot of that era and civil rights movement.

I agree with Irene about "standing the test of time." Also about Mockingbird, which is the best example, I think, of a classic book seamlessly transformed by Horton Foote, a man who changed my life, into a classic movie. There is a magic (not a word I use lightly) in both. Classics are difficult magic.

Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

I agree that classics are books that stand the test of time but I also think that classics are books that act as the foundation for many other literary ventures. They are the first of their kind. For example The Count of Monte Cristo is one of my favorite classics that tells the story of one man's vengeance. Now we have come across many interpretations of this novel but the initial idea or thread was put forth by this book which makes it a classic.

I think of a classic as book that has lasted more then one generation. That it is still relevant today as the day it was written and will be for a very long time. There is a saying I know of " Classics are books everyone should read but no one ever does."
Classics are where we get our popular culture from, we are still quoting Shakespeare after all these years.

http://nyx5.blogspot.com/

Ilana wrote: "I think of a classic as book that has lasted more then one generation. That it is still relevant today as the day it was written and will be for a very long time. There is a saying I know of " Clas..."

This is a nice concise way to put it. Thanks! A classic is a book that has lasted more than one generation, that is still as relevant today as the day it was written and will be for a long time. Add to that that they often break new ground as to style and/or subject.

Classics not only stand the test of time, but also stand as a testament of their time. For example someone mentioned Huckleberry Finn, that book is said (haven't read it yet, but am actually starting it tonight), to capture the south in a very real way. The same holds true for classics such as The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith, and others and others into infinity. I think books that capture towns or cultures as characters could be considered classics, regardless of when they were published.

Something I'd like to say about vintage classics versus modern classics.

Today is known as the information age. What this means for us bibliophiles is that it is as easy as a click of a button or a trip to the local library to pick up any and all classic literature of the past. The authors of the past did not always have that luxury. Every year, it seems, more and more books are being published and pushed onto the public. Some of these books are wonderful, could be classics, could be trash. The point is there is just SO MUCH of it, that it would be impossible for one person to read it all. All these added to the library of time where all classic literature resides. People are encouraged to read the classics, that have already stood the test of time, which makes it that much more likely that they won't get to more of the newer stuff, of their own generation. In the past, it was hard to print so many copies of books, and circulate them to the population. Now, even the books you read and can't believe actually got published are on every bookshelf across america. This includes resources to help the writing process. As a result, more people now than ever are writing. It's overwhelming to think how much material is out there, and constantly being put out there every day. The definition of classics of this age may change, who knows. It will be hard to tell.

I think that the definition of a classic is, as has been demonstrated by this discussion, almost impossible to do - its all so subjective. Having said that a classic must be well written, have something to say to the present generation and be a reflection of its own time. The literary aspect may be the most important part of a definition as many books have something to say about their own time but are not necessarily well written or accessible to the modern reader ( or in the case of James Joyce any reader )and are therefore not timeless- so should they be considered to be classics?

Emma, I recently started rereading Huck Finn, too. I was immediately struck by how Twain puts Huck at the center of three skewed "value systems": the racist culture of the time, Jim's superstitions, and Tom's willful acting-out of book fantasies....

Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

Jillian ❀‿❀ wrote: "Please gather round. 

Although ultimately I'm going to consider any older book I read a classic 🙂 what I suppose I'd say MAKES a classic according to scholarly folk is a book that is old and als..."

I agree that old does not equal classic. And even more, not all books by classic authors are automatically classics. I think classic books show you how things were, what people thought at the time or pave the way for change. Some of these can/will be comfort reads and some as Jillian says will "break your brain..."

As someone who is interested in 20th Century Classics, I found this interesting list of “modern classic” books, some of which I have no acquaintance. https://bookriot.com/100-must-read-mo...

Some text might be a classic when friends say: What? You have never read --------. . . .

Oh what is a conscientious reader to do but add another book to her the list.

Classics

This is a debated question. I think a classic needs the following qualities:

1. It should be older - as has been said it has "stood the test of time".
2. It should be well written. By that I mean elegant language: descriptive with well developed characters and setting. Interesting plot features help.
3. It needs to capture well a moment in time or an important historical period or trend. Perhaps it addresses an important idea.
4. Perhaps it is an early example of a style, or establishes a literary convention, that was later copied and recopied.

Negatives:
1. Old does not always equal good.
2. Interesting ideas yes, but some books just seem to poke the reader in the eye to be hateful and provocative. Then the reader is supposed to say, "Thank you for making me uncomfortable." Sometimes being hateful is just being a jerk, not a classic author.
3. If I feel like I am eves dropping on a private counseling session of a deeply disturbed individual, I do not think that is "classic". Some post-modern writers are just too much into their own navels for me to consider the books classic. There needs to be some level of universal relatability.

So that was a bit harsh I know, but I have struggled through a few books that were just confrontational for confrontation's sake without any upside to the struggle. I would rather not list them. Then we will have confrontation in the thread.

Anything that's at least 50 years old is fair game to me, although I do have a reserve of more contemporaneous works that I believe have the longevity of a classic. Literature continues to operate under far too much of a solipsistic hegemony for me to use any kind of "universal" as a gauge, so not everything that fails to resonate with me and/or I simply dislike doesn't necessarily not deserve to be called a classic. Still, there are works out there that I feel survive simply because of how faithfully they're carried forward by various accredited sites of knowledge production not as the result of repeated instances of thorough and conscientious critical evaluation, but out of force of thoughtless habit or a desire to uphold a sense of tradition/normality, whatever that is. In any case, I'm satisfied with trying my hand at both the popularly upheld and agonizingly obscure and creating my own personal "canon" for my own pleasure, and perhaps encouraging others to read something revelational that they wouldn't have encountered otherwise.

I still believe that as humans there are aspects to life that are common to us all. If this were not so then communication would be impossible. I see this as a position of love toward others. It is against the very hatred I was opposed to. The words solipsistic hegemony when someone is talking about understanding and universal brotherhood (*sisterhood ) if you must, is actually a condescending non sequitor. I usually let this stuff pass me by, but I'm feeling feisty. Obscure and classic are antonyms. Can we read the obscure? Sure, but that does not make it classic. I try not to judge others to decide that they need "revelations".

Although solipsism - extreme egoism - is the perfect word to describe the navel gazing books which have limited, therefore not universal, appeal.

Lynn, may I ask where you are getting this "understanding/universal brotherhood" from? I was responding to the board's prompt, not to any particular discussion post. In any case, the unnatural predominance of English/Europe in the modern day milleu makes it difficult for the casual reader of the classics to imbibe the necessary learning required for understanding and appreciating vitally important historical texts such as The Popol Vuh. Texts such as that are not going to win some kind of popularity contest in order to justify its continuing to be read throughout future ages. And, in the long run, no text, however well known and well lauded they are today, is going to maintain that status out of luck and circumstance forever. Either we actively develop methods of relative appreciation for both what we understand and what we don't, or we're not going to appreciate the diversity of classics we have until they're lost to us forever.

Aubrey wrote: "Lynn, may I ask where you are getting this "understanding/universal brotherhood" from? I was responding to the board's prompt, not to any particular discussion post. In any case, the unnatural pred..."

Thank you for your kind reply, and I mean that sincerely. For a discussion of universality as an element of classic please see message 7 the first link.

Another link https://www.livewritethrive.com/2012/...

But mostly as teachers in Middle School would have students analyze texts, there were several distinct concepts. I will discuss two.

1. Themes: a theme can be specific or universal. A universal theme is something that could have been a message in multiple cultures/languages/time period. It is common across places and times. A specific theme is not. Examples: universal - Strive to be the best a person can be. specific - Be a quarterback on a football team to succeed. Students have a hard time looking past the specifics of a text to find the universal message.

2. Author's tone. A good author develops a voice. That voice can be discerned by readers. The tone is the emotions the author feels toward the subject as he or she writes. There can of course be many emotions displayed by authors. I have recently read a few books that in their limited scope do not in my opinion reach the level of classic. A distinguishing feature of the particular books that limited them was the angry hateful tone of the author. Those books have a purpose for the author, but I do not think they are classics.

I have started not listing and not rating books that I would give very low ratings to. The word "hegemony" and the idea of a uncritical acceptance of a Western canon were what I was reacting to. Honestly, the four texts I thought of were written by 1 person of color and 3 European women. I personally don't think that the identity of authors should have anything to do with it. It was the writing itself.