What makes a classic novel?

[cyberbob]

wtf is the human condition anyway? that is such a vague and generic weasel word.

[Meta Penguin]

Truth and beauty.

Eh, not really.

Today we have so many writers writing from different corners of the world and to find any piece of writing to be a classic is unconvincing. In the past there were a few writers and we could read and appreciate all of their works. Today we have many and we have many other things of entertainment.

What quality makes a novel classic is indeed a good question and that in turn may demand of budding writers something from readers' point of view. A novel must have a lot of philosophy and a little bit innovation to survive the taste of time or else they will lose their sheen in a decade and they become almost forgotten.

First of all, some authors become deservedly popular such as the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen, because if we consider the period they lived in, their whole status becomes romantic and endearing. Not to mention that Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice are really, really, really good novels, with a great plot and marvellous prose.

Now, others get this 'status' as they 'managed' to grasp the human sentiment of the time, or ironically oppose against it. They can be the voice or the rebel of the time, and these stories are of literary and historical value, a notion heavily valued in today's society. We are keen to record human history and keep it as realistic as possible and novels that depict the time realistically and written in that time is bound to become a canon.

However, this is all but one fraction of a cake. I could bring out endless 'propositions' as to how a work becomes classic.

[Alexander III]

I would assume it would be a classic writer.

[osho]

Eh, not really.


First of all, some authors become deservedly popular such as the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen, because if we consider the period they lived in, their whole status becomes romantic and endearing. Not to mention that Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice are really, really, really good novels, with a great plot and marvellous prose.

Now, others get this 'status' as they 'managed' to grasp the human sentiment of the time, or ironically oppose against it. They can be the voice or the rebel of the time, and these stories are of literary and historical value, a notion heavily valued in today's society. We are keen to record human history and keep it as realistic as possible and novels that depict the time realistically and written in that time is bound to become a canon.

However, this is all but one fraction of a cake. I could bring out endless 'propositions' as to how a work becomes classic.

And I have read somewhere literature must be in the vocabulary of the time. In fact this is something that has to do with standards and norms and any standards we set or some others set for a certain piece of writing is ephemeral, passing and they get decayed,rotten over time. In another millennium what we brag about Shakespeare will be obsolete, trash and some other great pieces are likely to pop up. Anything man made is not eternal and man himself is not immortal.

[Darcy88]

Eh, not really.

And what is that? If a work is aesthetically pleasing in form and profoundly truthful/relevant/universal in content, then does that not make it a classic?

[Meta Penguin]

And what is that? If a work is aesthetically pleasing in form and profoundly truthful/relevant/universal in content, then does that not make it a classic?

Every art is beautiful, and has to pertain a certain tinge of truth in them. Art reflects life, or the aptitudes that we want to achieve, a world beyond we want to imagine. By saying that these two aspects are what distinguishes classical works from a work is snobbish.

[Darcy88]

Every art is beautiful, and has to pertain a certain tinge of truth in them. Art reflects life, or the aptitudes that we want to achieve, a world beyond we want to imagine. By saying that these two aspects are what distinguishes classical works from a work is snobbish.

Its snobbish to say that a classic must be of outstanding aesthetic and intellectual merit? For me that is what defines a classic. Of the works being written now it will be those most endowed with truth and beauty that shall be reckoned amongst the classics.

[cafolini]

Its snobbish to say that a classic must be of outstanding aesthetic and intellectual merit? For me that is what defines a classic. Of the works being written now it will be those most endowed with truth and beauty that shall be reckoned amongst the classics.

Truth? What is truth? Beauty? That might be if the ugly can be kept away from beholding. Ha!

[Meta Penguin]

Its snobbish to say that a classic must be of outstanding aesthetic and intellectual merit? For me that is what defines a classic. Of the works being written now it will be those most endowed with truth and beauty that shall be reckoned amongst the classics.

Or good publicity...

[Darcy88]

Or good publicity...

You're right. Nothing aesthetically or intellectually outstanding about the works of Homer or Virgil or Milton or any of the others deemed classic, they just had good publicity.

I may very well be mistaken in my criteria. You have yet to demonstrate how I am mistaken.

[cyberbob]

You're right. Nothing aesthetically or intellectually outstanding about the works of Homer or Virgil or Milton or any of the others deemed classic, they just had good publicity.

I may very well be mistaken in my criteria. You have yet to demonstrate how I am mistaken.

He said OR good publicitiy. As in, it could be those things you said OR good publicity.

Technically speaking, the only two things a novel or whatever needs to be called a classic is to be at least somewhat popular for an enduring amount of time. A novel may have truth and beauty in it, but if it's completely forgotten in a few generations, then is it a classic? No.

[osho]

He said OR good publicitiy. As in, it could be those things you said OR good publicity.

Technically speaking, the only two things a novel or whatever needs to be called a classic is to be at least somewhat popular for an enduring amount of time. A novel may have truth and beauty in it, but if it's completely forgotten in a few generations, then is it a classic? No.

Just getting popularity for an enduring amount of time always does not make something classic and by old standards classics must have philosophy, and meantime its language and theme must be grand and this standard may lose sheen today since everything is in flux and I do not want to be judgmental. Most of what we call bestsellers will lose ground in future.

[B. Laumness]

Today we have so many writers writing from different corners of the world and to find any piece of writing to be a classic is unconvincing. In the past there were a few writers and we could read and appreciate all of their works. Today we have many and we have many other things of entertainment.

What quality makes a novel classic is indeed a good question and that in turn may demand of budding writers something from readers' point of view. A novel must have a lot of philosophy and a little bit innovation to survive the taste of time or else they will lose their sheen in a decade and they become almost forgotten.

You’ll be surprised to learn that, in the 17th century already, many complained about the “huge” amount of books printed each year.

Philosophy is perishable: it is not the most important ingredient of a good novel. The style, in a broad sense, is much more important.

[bookworm#1]

There is no classical novel written in the last 100 years. If still there is people who was alive when Proust, Woolf and Joyce where giving cards, then time is just not enough. It is possible that by the end of the next 2 centuries any of those 3 will be gone while Tolkien and Clarke are still read and people will laugh about our judgment which ignored the, in 200 years, obvious fact, they adapted the language to a pulp style, which was the obvious thrend since Dafoe, etc...

Clarke is not that bad (a genre author as he is), his density is much due his effort towards scientifism, but one or another short story is interesting (one about the millions name of god pops to my mind).

Actually, there are some classics written in the last 100 years. Peter Pan was written in 1928, and that is considered as one of literature's great classics. Lord of the Rings was also written in 1954, and is known as the newest classic, so there have been classics written in the past 100 years

[ashulman]

I think the essential quality is strangeness. We keep coming back to them because they offer something we can't entirely reckon with.