Jump to content

What Defines A Classic?


Charm

Recommended Posts

When you look at a list of classic books, authors like William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie, Jane Austin, Mary Shelly, etc. usually show up. So when do you think the books of today (Terry Pratchette, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo, etc.) become labeled as "classics"? Is it just when the language is replaced by new slang, or when the authors die, or...??

 

Quite a pointless question.

 

You say that time as to pass before a book can be considered a classic,don't you?

I think this way of looking at the problem can be misleading, if not at all incorrect. The lapsing of time can add value to a classic book, in the sense that more gneration can find shelter in tis pages, but this work often in one way only. If a book hasn't the strenght, depth, beauty, to be a classic, it will never be one. Not even at the end of the world :roll:

It may be a very good book, but not a "classic". No matter how much time is passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would say universally acclaimed both critically and from the general public. Personally I'd define a classic as a book I'm gutted to finish and I'd defend to the death in any discussion. I'd also not rest until I'd hassled at least one person into reading it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 5 months later...

Very few... Maybe JD Salinger, Vikram Seth, and some others I can't seem to be able to name.

 

 

A classic is made by its timelessness. Some stories never grow old. They just change the world in a way. And each generation deems them worthy enough to be passed on to the next. And some others are classics in that their importance is yet to be discovered. After all, Herman Melville was never celebrated for as long as he lived. HG Wells gained importance when many of his stories turned out to be predictions of a sort.

 

I find it hard to believe that any fantasy book of this day and age will last another decade or so. Maybe Harry Potter will exist as a children's classic. I definitely can't see A Song Of Fire And Ice or The Wheel Of Time lasting that long. Sad though that may be.

 

Then there're other books. Crime and murder mysteries will definitely not last that long. Grisham, King, Ludlum, Crichton... I don't see any of them being studied eighty or so years from now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read yes, but will they be studied for their literary feats? King is pretty straightforward in his story writing isn't he? But then again, I haven't read those two. :lol: I'll be sure buy both next time.

 

Admittedly some of his work is nothing more than straightforward, popcorn horror. But one of the major things people complain about his work, as I have done in the past, is when people pick up one of his books expecting a thrill a minute modern horror movie on paper, and find that the work is a lot deeper and he can go into painstaking detail to set the mood for characters and scene.

The Stand is one of the greatest books I have ever read, but is one you have to read slowly so you can savour the mood of what he is trying to get across. People who attempt to read it like they would a fast moving crime thriller for example, will end up disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just remembered a quote of Mark Twain's regarding classics. Thought I'd share.

 

I don't believe any of you have ever read PARADISE LOST, and you don't want to. That's something that you just want to take on trust. It's a classic, just as Professor Winchester says, and it meets his definition of a classic -- something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.

- "The Disappearance of Literature" speech, 20 November 1900

 

Note: Professor Winchester was Caleb Thomas Winchester (1847-1920), librarian of Connecticut Wesleyan University from 1869 - 1885 and Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature there from 1873 - 1920.

 

Source.

 

Not that I agree, of course, most of my favourite books are classics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "classic" nature of a book is only measured by the time it's been around, how long it's survived. So, let's take a popular book, Harry Potter for instance. For it to be considered a classic (to me, it still isn't), it has to be around for at least some decenia. This, of course, doesn't mean a book is bad or inferior in any way. Just not that resilient to the sands of time, if that makes sense (Not a native speaker, people! :lol:). A classic is a work people keep coming back to, that's universal, and applicable to almost every age in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi. As a newbie to these boards, can I ask a daft question? How do you define a classic for this forum? Is it age, quality or lasting popularity?

We don't have a board 'policy' as such - if we knew the perfect answer, this thread wouldn't need to exist! - but personally I think it's a combination of all three. I wouldn't consider a book a classic just because it's old, or good, or popular; I would however cosider it a classic if it had been around for a bit and was worthy of being remembered in more than just my individual opinion :) to answer what was probably your question - if you think a book's a classic and want to talk about it, feel free to start a topic in this section.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing classics in school, a classic was considered something of permanent value (not just a book, but also music, style, etc).

Something that is true or applicable or understandable (not necessarily all of these things need to apply to every classic) whenever it was read, but mainly valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much agree that a classic is something with permanent value. A book that that becomes part of the culture of society. It must therefore take time to be called a 'classic', but I also agree that it is very subjective. As an avid reader, I may read a book that in my opinion will be a classic, but this may or may not happen. However, can the book be considered a classic by myself only, or does it need the approval of society at large? I suppose my thoughts are that it needs to be recognised by society as something of definite cultural value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you can consider it a classic yourself and it wouldn't be a crime to do so if others disagreed. :lol:

 

I have always thought of a classic as a book that has stood the test of time and has universal themes that apply to all humankind.

 

My definition may not be correct, and the majority may disagree, but it works for me.

Edited by Pixie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Hi folks

 

I had a question about some of the Classics that I have always wondered about . I thought maybe someone in here would have the answer :

 

Lots of them start like this :

 

They will say , it was the year 189_   ....... or in the village of ______ ...

 

Can anyone tell me , why the authors leave it blank, sometimes about the year ,or the place ,or I may be wrong, but I THINK there have been some that leave the last name of the person out ,filling it with the same __________.

 

Anyone know why they do this ? 

 

Thanks for any help .      :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure with that one Julie, I had always assumed it was a way of avoiding any potential libellous issues with real people/family names in real locations. The year date  is a bit of an oddity though. Mmmmm, I am all intrigued now. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

well said Binary Digit!I think you have defined a classic book [as well as a classic car.]Age itself is not the defining feature, but a mixture of [some] age, respect and love of the book is.Not to mention extremely well written.To me, classics from the 20th Century would be E.M Forster, William Golding, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Evelyn Waugh, George Orwell,Graham Green, to name but a few.

So many books, so little time!! :readingtwo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi folks

 

I had a question about some of the Classics that I have always wondered about . I thought maybe someone in here would have the answer :

 

Lots of them start like this :

 

They will say , it was the year 189_   ....... or in the village of ______ ...

 

Can anyone tell me , why the authors leave it blank, sometimes about the year ,or the place ,or I may be wrong, but I THINK there have been some that leave the last name of the person out ,filling it with the same __________.

 

Anyone know why they do this ? 

 

Thanks for any help .      :)

 

 

That's the same thing I've been wondering about! :) I think I read somewhere why that is, but stupid brain has forgotten all about it :doh:   Surely someone can enlighten us.... ?

 

There is a ton of this in Les Mis and it confused me so much. My brain needs a word lol. So I just made up random words to fit in :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion "classic" is not a good definition of books. I would rather sort books by the time they were released and then check the impact they have had on society/etc. so far. Occasionally I use classic - for example Shakespears Romeo and Juliet is a classic in my opinion - but the definition is pretty vague so if you really want to say something about a book, you have to do more than just call it a classic.

 

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...