[Charm]

Was racking my brain cells trying to remember if, among all the books I've read over the years, there were any classics. Then I had to ask myself the question, 'what actually defines a classic?' I mean who says 'Ok the book <whatever title> now has 'Classic' status and why so?

Any thoughts? :)

[Nollaig]

Ooooh look whose getting all philosophical!

I think at least part of 'classic' status is directly related to the universality or truth of a book, even if its fictional. To appeal on a near universal scale hints at something that most authors can't do, so when it is done, we all gather round that book and say, 'ah yes, now that one will be a classic.'

Many classics also tried something new, I think. I don't really take classics in context, so I can't give examples. Actually, wait, yes I can:
The Female Quixote. One of those 18th century books that was written around/after Pamela - classic books which embody the changing views of culture and women in those times. With that in mind, perhaps some classics are those which give us a genuine insight to the time in which they were written?

I'm rambling. :)

[Echo]

I usually think of a classic as something that was written before World War I, but I also use the term to describe something that has had a major impact. For example, I would consider anything by Hemingway to be a classic because of his impact on American literature, even though all of his books were published after World War I.

[Kreader]

Echo said:

I usually think of a classic as something that was written before World War I, but I also use the term to describe something that has had a major impact. For example, I would consider anything by Hemingway to be a classic because of his impact on American literature, even though all of his books were published after World War I.

I'd have to agree with this.

[Charm]

RoxiS.C. said:

Ooooh look whose getting all philosophical!

Oi! I do do some thinking for myself once in a while you know! :)

Thanks everyone ;)

I don't know why but I did always think a classic was a novel that was written before a certain period, but wasn't really sure what the cut off point was. I guess WW1 was probably round about the time I was thinking. I do think that books which have a big influence on society, and are well written recently and today may become classics of the future.

[Nollaig]

Charm said:

I do think that books which have a big influence on society, and are well written recently and today may become classics of the future.

Well this is it. 'Classics' makes me think of 'books written before time X' but by that definition, we'll nevr again have classics beyond what we have. I think classics are more books that have/will stand the test of time and appeal to continuing generations, even after societies and times have changed.

[Chrissy]

It is one of those questions that I cannot answer with a proper statement,
it is more a case of "Name a book, and I'll tell you if it's a classic!"
(and that answers nothing!)

I define a classic by the ongoing devotion to it from readers, by the influence it had
on the thinking of the time, either through content or style.

Can a classic be defined by it's publication date? I'm not sure, Hemingway was
Echo's example, another could be George Orwell, who published Animal Farm
& Nineteen Eighty Four after World War Two.

I'm going to be pondering this one now!

[ii]

Well, many people, like myself use WWI as the 'cut-point' for classics, because it had such a huge effect on society and the way we see the world around us. Styles changed, in all areas of living. And a 'classic' would have to have the ability to stand the test of time, and WWI is just a nice time period away. If a book was written before it, and is still read and appreciated, then it has stood the test of time. A newer book while it might be equally good, and will have the same duration, hasn't had that yet. We don't know what people will be reading 50 years from now. So naming one of the newer books a classic already is a bit of a gamble.

I think we discussed this whole definition of a classic somewhere earlier. But for example for the Classics Circle, we're using WWI as the cut-off. Just to make it simpler. I personally would also include authors like Hemingway into the classics-group. I guess a term 'modern classic' could be applied to them? To distinguish that while they've been around for a while now, they haven't really 'matured' enough to be 'classics'.

But, do you think that in twenty years or so the WWII will be used as a cut-off point? Or is it really more about the change in the society that makes the WWI such a divider?

[pipread]

RoxiS.C. said:

Well this is it. 'Classics' makes me think of 'books written before time X' but by that definition, we'll nevr again have classics beyond what we have. I think classics are more books that have/will stand the test of time and appeal to continuing generations, even after societies and times have changed.

You have said what I was thinking!

[Kylie]

ii said:

But, do you think that in twenty years or so the WWII will be used as a cut-off point? Or is it really more about the change in the society that makes the WWI such a divider?

Interesting question. I'm inclined to think that the goal posts will move with time, if only because the title of 'modern classic' would seem strange when applied to books published between, for example, WWI and WWII (if we were discussing them another 50 years down the track).

And who knows...perhaps other large-scale changes in society will move the goal posts time and again.

[ii]

Kylie said:

And who knows...perhaps other large-scale changes in society will move the goal posts time and again.

Interesting thought. I immediately started to think what fairly current change could later on serve as such a goal post. Internet came to mind. Could it be that one day we'd call books written pre-Internet, and still popular, classics? Interesting. (Much more so that my current lock in my writing.)

[Freewheeling Andy]

I've said it before, here, that World War One makes the key dividing line for me.

It's not just because of the distance of time. There's much more to it than that - and because of those reasons I don't think WWII will become the dividing line.

There are two elements. One is societal, historical. World War One changed the way we understood the world. We moved from a relatively innocent Victorian age, an age of empires and class, basically, into a world where the industrial revolution was pushed into the realm of the industrialisation of war. At the same time, it brought the car and aeroplane leaping forward and is basically the dividing line between a world where communication takes weeks by boat, to one where it takes days. And, also, the Russian Revolution, the arrival of totalitarian communist and fascist states, arrived at the same time.

All of these fundamentally changed the way society worked. World War 2, although more violent and more extreme in the numbers killed (oddly, though, not for Britain, who lost far more men in WWI) did not change the way the world operated in quite the same way - really only the nuclear threat, the threat of total oblivion, fundamentally changed our understanding of the world.

Meanwhile, in literature, cleverness, post-modernism, playing with structure, all arrived pretty quickly after WWI. Joyce and Kafka and Bulgakov and so on started producing books that didn't stick to the traditional idioms and styles. Probably Hemingway, too. The style of writing changed, and anyone trying to write like Austen or Dickens or Hardy was, from then on, only going to be seen as writing a pastiche.

So, unless and until we have another very small number of years that massively change the way society thinks, I think we won't have another sensible definition of classic.

And I think this definition of classic also works in the sense that many people still long for an innocent, pre-industrial age, where the writing wasn't fancy or clever, just structured and straightforward, and pre-WWI largely falls into that form; post-WWi pretty much doesn't.

[landevale]

I actually don't agree with using a cut-off date to designate what's a classic and what isn't. Besides the obvious problems with the fuzziness of dates, I also just think that there is more to it than that. There are works from before WWI which are still read on occasion but are probably not considered classics; for example, I recently read a poem called "To His Royall Highness," which was written during the Renaissance but which I doubt if anyone would consider a classic. In fact, I only read it because it had value as a historical artefact, rather than as a piece of literature. That, I think, is an important part of what makes a classic a classic: it has to have "literary value." That takes time to get established, of course, which means that it's odd to talk about a contemporary classic, but I don't think that age is the only factor. To use the language of logic, age is necessary but not sufficient to define what a classic is. :lol:

I'm sorry to sound cynical, but I think a classic is really just what people decide it to be. Certain books get labelled that way, and as times change, other books get added to the list. The canon in the past used to be a lot more restrictive than it is now, but I still think that it is surprisingly arbitrary even now. When you think about the definition of classics as those books which have "withstood the test of time," it makes me wonder why it is that some books have while others haven't. The cynic in me wants to suggest that sometimes it is more a factor of pedagogy, elitist attitudes, and what have you, rather than an actual "universal" quality of the writing itself.

Sorry if this is an unwelcome opinion... I also realize that I could have maybe phrased things a bit nicer too. Oh well!

[Nollaig]

Well I agree with you.I can understand the cut-off point opinion, but I certainly don't view every single book written prior to a cut-off point as a classic - we just happen to only read the classics because the others aren't are worthwhile. So I agree thats its an necessary but insufficient condition.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Oh, absolutely. For me it has to be old enough, in the classic style rather than using any modernist or post-modern idiom or writing style. But it also has to really be part of the canon. There's Victorian dross which is clearly not classic. But I still think almost anything written post-WWI can't be thought of as a classic in the way that, say, Austen or Dickens or Flaubert or Hugo or Tolstoy are.

This post has been edited by Freewheeling Andy: 16 January 2009 - 02:19 PM

[Nollaig]

Freewheeling Andy said:

But it also has to really be part of the canon. There's Victorian dross which is clearly not classic.

I have to admit, I have a serious thing for Gothic literature, starting with the earliest Gothic Romances in the late 1700s/early 1800s, but particularly Victorian Gothic writing. :lol: I like newer 'Gothic' fiction too, and right before 1900 some of my favourites were published, but 1900ish is where it ends for me I think. I have a major thing about Victorian society. :D

[Ben]

RoxiS.C. said:

I have to admit, I have a serious thing for Gothic literature, starting with the earliest Gothic Romances in the late 1700s/early 1800s, but particularly Victorian Gothic writing. :lol: I like newer 'Gothic' fiction too, and right before 1900 some of my favourites were published, but 1900ish is where it ends for me I think. I have a major thing about Victorian society. :)

That's weird! In my taster session for 6th forum English Literature, the teacher grabbed our attention through gothic literature! I found it very interesting indeed, and I'm taking English lit so I'm looking forward to it very much. :mrgreen:

[Nollaig]

Enthusiast said:

That's weird! In my taster session for 6th forum English Literature, the teacher grabbed our attention through gothic literature! I found it very interesting indeed, and I'm taking English lit so I'm looking forward to it very much. :mrgreen:

I've studied several texts in Romantic/Gothic literature, Victorian literature and some 18th Century Literature. I tried those last year and loved them, so this year I'm back for more!

[Ben]

RoxiS.C. said:

I've studied several texts in Romantic/Gothic literature, Victorian literature and some 18th Century Literature. I tried those last year and loved them, so this year I'm back for more!

Wow, well we looked at extracts from Frankenstein and The Othello Castle or something a long those lines. :mrgreen:

[Nollaig]

Enthusiast said:

Wow, well we looked at extracts from Frankenstein and The Othello Castle or something a long those lines. :mrgreen:

You mean The Castle Of Otranto? :lol:
Yeah, thats supposed to be THE starting point for gothic romantic/victorian writing.

I did Frankenstein last year, along with Caleb Williams, another superb book. One of the best things about gothic literature is the psychological aspect. The unknown. The uncanny. Its brilliant stuff :)