Defining 'classic' and 'literature'

[Nightshade]

Well since this conversation seems to be raging in a number of threads all over the place I thought we might consolidate and try and come up with a working definition of 'classic' to be used as a bench mark, because it seems to be more often than not alot of us are at cross purposes with our different interpretations of the 2 crucial words.
So What do you think can be classified as literature?
What is a classic?
What makes a classic a classic and not just some old book?
Is a classic defined simply by who produced it or should each work stand alone to be judged?
What makes a great author great, quality, quantity, durability?

[ben.!]

Literature is anything of the written word in my opinion.

Classic is a book of great quality that has stood the test of time. I guess if a book is well-written and has survived then it is great, of quality, quantity and durability.

[JBI]

Anything that lasts to the point that it is read by more than just academics 100 years after the author. To Kill a Mockingbird, and other works will have to wait.

[Joreads]

Literature is anything of the written word in my opinion.

Classic is a book of great quality that has stood the test of time. I guess if a book is well-written and has survived then it is great, of quality, quantity and durability.

I have to agree with you. Anyone that takes the time to write something down for us to read is amazing in my eyes.

Classic are books that people read generation after generation and love.

[kelby_lake]

Classics can be 'modern' (i.e. Animal Farm) or 'classic (i.e.Pride and Prejudice)

They must be:
- well-written
- impressive
- emotional and or intelligent
- the perfect example of what a time or place was like
- and/or relevant to today's society
- inspiring
- warrent a re-reading (or at least a wish to)

[Nossa]

I think classic books are more than just old books. They probably influenced literature writing even till now. They outlived their ages and their authors, and are still read till this day.
As for what's considred literature. I don't believe that it's everything written, cuz not all what's written is good or valuable. I think it has to do with how it's written, and how well it presented whatever idea it discussed. Some literature is also considered valubale as to the number of languages they were translated into (which is a weak argument if you ask me). Maybe it changed a certain 'way' of writing. Like I remember I read a book called 'A Foreigner's Letters' it's an Arabic book of 30 short stories, by a Lebanese writer. It has to do with the literature of the people who live abroad and not in their original countries. I read critical views about the book that it's considered as a universal literary work because it discussed the idea of being away from the mother country in a different way. For instance, normally writers who live abroad, write in a nostalgic way, for they miss their old country and the people they knew there, but this author always sought in her writings to show that these 'foreigners' tried to forget their country and mingle in the new world, they didn't want to feel the guilt of leaving or abadoning their countries and seeking life elsewhere.
So anyways, I personally think that this is true. Why do we read George Orwell or Shakespeare? Because they went beyond their world, they predicted the people and the events of the future. Why do we read Jane Austen or Franz Kafka or anyone like them? Because they presented what we, as ordinary readers, think and feel, even when we can't exacly acknowledge these feelings. Just yesterday, in a thread about William Faulkner, NickAdams told me something very interesting. That William Faulkner's Light In August moved in him certain emotions that he didn't even know existed. This is literature. And so, literature can be relative. What you think is worthy of your time, might be a total waste of it for someone else. I don't really believe in the global standards of awards and bestsellers, I believe the reader is the sole judge of the book.

[Chester]

Anything that lasts to the point that it is read by more than just academics 100 years after the author. To Kill a Mockingbird, and other works will have to wait.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I know kelby_lake mentioned Animal Farm, but will people still be talking about Animal Farm a hundred years from now? Can we call something a classic that tomorrow isn't regarded as a classic anymore? Is there such a thing as a classic "for its time"?

I think standing the true test of time, crossing over from generation to generation (JBI's 100 years seems a good test, although I know these things are kind of slippery), is what makes a true classic.

[johann cruyff]

I'm inclined to agree with this. I know kelby_lake mentioned Animal Farm, but will people still be talking about Animal Farm a hundred years from now?

Why even doubt that?Will people forget about Stalin,Hitler,the Tehran Conference,Lav Trotsky,etc.?No,and they will not forget about a rare example of a book that satirized things that weren't to be messed with at the time.

[Chester]

You're probably right. But it's still speculation. I'm inclined to want to let future generations decide whether something from not all that long ago in the scheme of things should be properly termed a "classic."

Does the average man on the street know who Gavrilo Princip was? Everybody did in 1914.

[JBI]

I personally don't think people will read Animal Farm. The allegory becomes more and more difficult to understand as generations go, and it just won't be worth it. As it is most people haven't read it, and just know a couple quotes.

[Nossa]

I personally don't think people will read Animal Farm.

Maybe it's got to do with the fact that Orwell wrote it to attack a certain socio-political system that was dominating and since it doesn't exist any more (or at least not as powerfully), people stopped relating to it. I think he's more durable work is 1984. Though I wasn't a big fan of it at the time when I read it, I'm starting to really appreciate it.

[johann cruyff]

Does the average man on the street know who Gavrilo Princip was? Everybody did in 1914.

I do.He killed Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo,and the organization he was a member of was called Mlada Bosna(Young Bosnia).It was the event that triggered WWI.See?I'm the average man,and I know.I guess the question is which people we take into account.

Not to sound snobbish or elitistic,but I don't think these things will evaporate,especially in academic circles.The importance of Animal Farm isn't going to vanish into thin air,particularly amongst intellectuals.But this is drifting off-topic.

[JBI]

I do.He killed Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo,and the organization he was a member of was called Mlada Bosna(Young Bosnia).It was the event that triggered WWI.See?I'm the average man,and I know.I guess the question is which people we take into account.

Not to sound snobbish or elitistic,but I don't think these things will evaporate,especially in academic circles.The importance of Animal Farm isn't going to vanish into thin air,particularly amongst intellectuals.But this is drifting off-topic.

You know, but lets be honest, you're from the former Yugoslavia (I think, judging by your references to Serbo-Croat authors). I personally knew he was shot by a Serbian terrorist, but I had no clue that it was by said name. The name was pointless to me, and I still have not committed it to memory.

1984 may last, because it goes into the hypothetical, unlike Orwell's other works. Animal Farm I agree ceases to be as profound, and merely acts as jokes referencing to a period going more and more into obscurity.

[johann cruyff]

You know, but lets be honest, you're from the former Yugoslavia (I think, judging by your references to Serbo-Croat authors). I personally knew he was shot by a Serbian terrorist, but I had no clue that it was by said name. The name was pointless to me, and I still have not committed it to memory.

1984 may last, because it goes into the hypothetical, unlike Orwell's other works. Animal Farm I agree ceases to be as profound, and merely acts as jokes referencing to a period going more and more into obscurity.

My references are usually to Bosnian authors(hint: location,under the avatar),but okay,this was just an example that was very close to me.Here's a more global reference then: do you think Pol Pot,for instance,will be forgotten?Fidel Castro?Mao Zedong?No,and I think we can all agree that these names are far less known than Stalin or Hitler.And honestly,even IF,in a hundred years,people don't know what the Cuban missile crisis,or who the Khmer Rouge were,they most certainly will know about WWII or the purges in USSR.That is why I believe Animal Farm will never lose its importance.

I do,however,agree with you that 1984 is an artistically much more valuable piece of fiction,and that it will be remembered as a far more important book - it already is,as a matter of fact.

[JBI]

Yes, but Animal Farm was written while the Soviet Union was still fresh. How many people reading it are going to automatically think Snowball is Trotsky? It is essentially a book of commentary on historical events from an allegorical point of view. If people wish to know about the time period, chances are they will go to a history book, and not to Orwell. The book becomes very inapplicable in our day, since the Soviet Union has fallen, and therefore it only reads as a commentary on history. I don't dispute that 1984 will last, but Animal Farm seems far too specific.