What makes a classic novel?

[rst]

Can anyone help me? I am trying to find out the general criteria for a classic novel? Who decides what becomes classic and how do they do it? Does a book have to have lasted a certain period of time before it is even considered?

Any comments or answers gratefully received. 8)

[ajoe]

That's a good question. When the use of language is poetic enough, I guess, a book is kind of classic. I mean, realistic kinds of stories (by Stephen King, R. L. Stine) are definitely not classical. And also maybe the time thing. Maybe in 2300 the books written today can be classic. :)

[fayefaye]

I think a classic book is one that outlasts time-people today can still read Jane Austen and enjoy it because they relate to the characters, or read Dumas because they enjoy the development of plot and characterisation. That's what makes it really classic, but I guess the term tends to be used on books that have just managed to survive being around for a while too. Say a century maybe?

[searcher101]

to be labeled a classic novel it has to achieve many things.

Morality - a classic novel should say something of value, drawing attention to human problems, condemn or applaud certain points of view. it should make a statement that is more significant than the "Chocolate cake is the world's best dessert" kind of comment. But we don't have to agree with the authors statement, it just has to be there.

Effective language - the language used should be forceful, fresh and not hackneyed, and suitable to the purposes of the statement/message.

Truthfulness - Is the work credible? Does the author make us believe what is being said? Such a standard cannot, of course, be applied literally. We do not believe in the literal truth of Gulliver's Travels or Candide, but we understand that the authors are using fantasy and exaggeration to communicate basic truths about humanity. Moreover, a good novel, story, or drama should give us the feeling that what happened to the characters was inevitable; that, given their temperaments and the situation in which they were placed, the outcome could not have been otherwise. Everything we know about Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman, for instance, makes his suicide inevitable. A different ending would have been disappointing and untrue.

Universality - Regardless of when it was written, the work should hold meaning still in the western world, and should still hold that meaning in the future. Huckleberry Finn, for example, although it has been called the first truly American novel, deals with a universal theme, the loss of innocence.

Timelessness - The work should be of lasting interest. The comments the author makes about people, about the pressure, rewards, and problems of life should still be relevant. The theme of the work should be as pertinent now as it was at the time it was written.

hope it helps.... if its still need

[JCamilo]

What makes a classic novel is the same that makes a classic haiku or a classic anything : A work which quality is such that his influence is spread in time and space - meaning since the work first showed other works keep being under its influence. Just it.

[PeterL]

The essential quality is universality.

[Vedrana]

Generally a book that remains in print, and that has a lasting readership long after it was written, is a classic. (in my humble opinion) And the reason, I believe, that it reaches this status, is what Searcher101 said. Usually these books remain popular because they are great examples of the style of the time (or they could be very unique examples of writing from that time), they have relevance to people (and people feel they can still find meaning in it), people relate to it, and it covers universal themes that defy the boundaries of the time in which they were written.

[Silvia]

I agree with those who said that unuversality makes a classic novel.
Someone said (maybe Umberto Eco, but I'm not sure about that), anyway, he said that a classic novel is an open one. It must suits your time and be open to modern interpretation.

[Silvia]

I agree with those who said that unuversality makes a classic novel.
Someone said (maybe Umberto Eco, but I'm not sure about that), anyway, he said that a classic novel is an open one. It must suit your time and be open to modern interpretation.

[ennison]

Well a classic book should last - stand the test of time. It may not always be in print though and may be unacknowleged by the writer's contemporaries. So I guess we can tell what IS classic (though they are not all equal) but we are not sure what MAY BECOME classic. If we take genre into account then the question becomes more complex. King is a classic horror writer but will he stand the crucial test of time; I wont say as I don't know. It is also the case that a text in a minor language may be classic but may have few readers if it is not translated into a major language. Conferring classic status on text A does not mean that it is better than text B.Tens of thousands of women have read and enjoyed novels by Holt/Plaidy and she is undoubtedly a writer of classic historical/romance novels. Is she better than the Joyce of 'Finnegan's Wake'. Well she's a dashed sight more enjoyable! If Joyce had not written 'Dubliners' and 'Ulysses' who would remember 'Finnegan's Wake' but a few ideosyncratic literature profs.

[JCamilo]

Classic have nothing to do with number of people reading, popularity, genre (and King is not a classic yet, even of Horror). People may stop reading a classic - this will not change his status. Be in the print is irrelevant. Who prints Shappho and she is a classic notheless.
The Classic must remain alive as influence, not as reading. If people read a book and it cause no effect, it can not be a classic. (For Classic is before anything a model).
Universaility is interesting but irrelevant since the reader will do anything he wants to a book and transform a particular manifestation (Like for example, the Bible, in an universal book).

[five-trey]

Universality - Regardless of when it was written, the work should hold meaning still in the western world, and should still hold that meaning in the future. Huckleberry Finn, for example, although it has been called the first truly American novel, deals with a universal theme, the loss of innocence.

I would argue that you are incorrect. Although Huckleberry Finn is a universal work, the loss of innocence is not one of its themes.

[meh!]

Critics

[JBI]

A tradition deems them worthwhile - that is a classic. Which tradition deems them, depends on what type of classic.

There are for instance 4 (really 5) Great Classic Novels of China, which have and will continue to be held up as THE classic Chinese novels, but I think many Western readers would prefer them in much shorter versions, or not like the works. Similarly, I do not like much German fiction, yet that tradition will still hold up its classics. Generally it all has to do with the tradition's valuing at any given time, but the central point is it has to have passed beyond a certain point.

I like to think 2 or more generations after the author's original audience are dead - a generation being at least 18 or so years. King has still some time to go.

[bluosean]

Im curious. What are these 5 classic novels from China?

[JBI]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Great_Classical_Novels

Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Journey to the West
Water Margin
Dream of the Red Chamber
and Jin Ping Mei, though the fifth is a recent edition by modernist-contemporary scholars.

[bluosean]

Thanks, the only one i have heard of is Dream of the Red Chamber.

[stlukesguild]

The Journey to the West was also known as Monkey or The Monkey King (the title by which my Chinese friend knew the work).

[Luvzi12]

Hi there! I am currently writing an essay about Atonement and To Kill A Mockingbird and "nostalgia" in the two texts. I was supposed to pick two "classic" novels, and although I think I can safely say Harper Lee's novel is "classic", I'm not sure I can say the same for Atonement.

Just wanted to say thanks to the previous commenters as they gave me a lot to think about, so now I just need to find some critics to justify what you all said! Ugh, effort!

Wish me luck :D

[LJPrice]

Maybe you could consider character as the defining factor of what makes a text classic. If you consider that all stories/novels/plots are reproductions of what has gone before (even Shakespeare is considered as rewriting previous plots) then surely everything should be considered classic.

However, the depth of character and reflection of human nature is what makes a text classic in my opinion. Especially with regards to Atonement; the story is revealed as false at the end, it is the charcter of Briony Tallis and her need to atone her wrongs that in my mind stand this in good stead to be considered a class.

Just something to consider.

[dfloyd]

not sold at a supermarket. Seems like a good enough definition to me.

[stlukesguild]

You mean they don't sell annotated editions of Dante next to the spicy Doritos at your Piggly Wiggly?

[Red-Headed]

You mean they don't sell annotated editions of Dante next to the spicy Doritos at your Piggly Wiggly?


I think I know what 'spicy Doritos' are, but wtf is a Piggly Wiggly? No, don't tell me, that's what search engines are for! :lol:

[Red-Headed]

not sold at a supermarket. Seems like a good enough definition to me.

This kind of reminds me about what the definition of a classic movie is. A cynical marketing ploy perhaps? ;)

[evanro]

Ok we've established that a classic novel stands the test of time, but what makes it do that.
Dickens, Austen, Fitzgerald, Atwood, Swift and George Orwell novels all have one common thread, if none other else.They all critique Society! A Social critique is were there author, director, poet and playwright portrays issues relevant to soicety at a particular time, some use mediums of satire, comedy, parody, creativity, Metaphors or sometimes just plain bluntness to express their ideas. anyone could write endless essays on these topics, just remember that it leaves the reader with a lasting message after reading the novel, leaves the reader to question society and whats encompassed within society, and hopefully they have enough sense to come to a conclusion.

[blazeofglory]

We cannot say it in a sentence what makes a novel classic. Of course there many things depending on different contexts and situations and of course in the case of Aynd Rand it is characterization that is more important than anything else. And she seemed to have been more focused on character building and keep aside the characters in her novels they becomes soulless. In Dickensian novels all that matter is plot and they are the spirit of his novels. Whereas in Dostoevsky I find pivotal things in his philosophy.

But all these things make novels novels and keeping one aside it will lose something very vital the way all limbs make a person full and therefore I cannot say one unimportant. The way our eyes, ears, nose have their distinct functions so are the things I have said in the novel

[MargoTheWriter]

A novel it's a classic if it deals with human feelings and behavior, and that it has survived time while not being forgotten.

[Razeus]

Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections and Freedom are classic novels.

[ReadAll]

As mentioned above, one of the things that makes classic novels classic is that they stand the test of time, they present the golden oldies (http://www.postalgold.ie/gold-recycling), the universal themes in fresh ways. But for me, I think most classic novels tend to, to put it simply, have a plot and have characters that you relate to in some way.

Classic novels tend to not be rambling literary fiction that wanders off on tangents; classic novels have proper plots, well-defined characters, but also tend to, at the same time, explore universal themes while working within the boundaries of standard fiction.

[Big Dante]

It is a very good question and reading through the comments a very good discussion. Looking over the books that we do consider classics you can find that there are unique things about each which makes them a classic and this can differ between each. For some it may be their style of writing, others morality or philosophical issues but each of them has something original about them.

[<Trinity>]

The essential quality is universality.

I agree - in the sense that it can be understood and enjoyed regardless of whether it revolves around the society and world of 50 or even hundreds of years ago. It should be the meaning and story that is important to one's understanding of it, regardless of whether one has a thorough knowledge of the world the author is writing from. A classic must need to have a lasting message, applicable by anyone's standard - how else does it outlive pulp fiction to still be read even centuries later, when entire social structures and world contexts have changed?
:)

[blazeofglory]

It is philosophy that makes a novel classic. See the Brothers Karamazov for instance.

Keep aside its philosophical part you will have nothing

[Nafo]

i just want to back up Stephen King, who a few have stated that his novels will not become classic. this is just my opinion, but i think King's work may come to be regarded as classic because he has explored some interesting themes about evil, and in some cases, human spirit. i know that a majority of his books may be horrors, but Shawshank and Green Mile are masterpieces that may become classics (in my opinion). Also, horrors shouldn't be excluded from being called classics, because aren't "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" just horror stories too?

Other than that, i agree with everything else that has been said on this board, some good posts guys :)

[RhapsodyDiablo]

I would argue that you are incorrect. Although Huckleberry Finn is a universal work, the loss of innocence is not one of its themes.

If I may I agree with the original author of the statement. The loss of innocence may not be the central theme in the work, but it is a theme. Huck is thrown into a world that is very different from the one he knows, that can be in a sense referred to as a loss of innocence.

[spellbanisher]

If I may I agree with the original author of the statement. The loss of innocence may not be the central theme in the work, but it is a theme. Huck is thrown into a world that is very different from the one he knows, that can be in a sense referred to as a loss of innocence.

Well, the only way to settle this now is with a poll. :biggrin5:

[Calidore]

Interesting thread. My opinion: As many different authors as there are who have written classics, all have different styles, strengths, and weaknesses. I think if you listed the qualities of each writer and then began eliminating them to find something in common, you'd end up with nothing.

People are different; they like different kinds of writing, different kinds of music, movies, etc. The only way I can see to define a classic written work is one that affects enough people that it stays around.

Best,

Calidore

[stlukesguild]

A novel becomes a classic if JBI, JCamillo, MortalTerror, Petrarch'sLove, and I deem it to be so. End of discussion.:biggrin5:

Now pass me the beer and crank up the Elmore James!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBk1faWI-k&feature=fvst

:party:

[Blasarius '33]

As many different authors as there are who have written classics, all have different styles, strengths, and weaknesses. I think if you listed the qualities of each writer and then began eliminating them to find something in common, you'd end up with nothing.

People are different; The only way I can see to define a classic written work is one that affects enough people that it stays around.Unless it's all an April Fools' joke and the right answer is "Text from ancient Greece/Rome," I'll ride these^ coattails.

[Trollzane]

I think a classic book is one that outlasts time-people today can still read Jane Austen and enjoy it because they relate to the characters, or read Dumas because they enjoy the development of plot and characterisation. That's what makes it really classic, but I guess the term tends to be used on books that have just managed to survive being around for a while too. Say a century maybe?

couldn't agree more

[JCamilo]

A novel becomes a classic if JBI, JCamillo, MortalTerror, Petrarch'sLove, and I deem it to be so. End of discussion.:biggrin5:

Now pass me the beer and crank up the Elmore James!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBk1faWI-k&feature=fvst

:party:

But each of us has the right to deny one nationality status. Oddly enough 4 votes denied any status to Canada and 1 vote denied any status for the state of California.

[stlukesguild]

Well surely its well understood that there are no Canadian "classics" anyway... that's why JBI has run into the waiting embrace of the Chinese.:biggrin5:

Now pas me another beer (or perhaps "one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer") and crank up the John Lee Hooker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNY0K82A7Ac

[blazeofglory]

What makes a novel classic?

In fact the most important thing a novel can do is a message and if it can give a message it endures and if it cannot it gets blown up in the ravage of time. That is why so many novels got lost and a few remain to this date that gets our appreciation.

When it comes to a good novel is its story first and foremost and then the morale is gives. Tolstoy is immortal since his novels are driven by morals.

Today most of novels are written for entertainment only and they get gone with the wind over time

[stlukesguild]

Canada?!? What has Canada got on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt9lwZyhmIo

[stlukesguild]

Tolstoy is immortal since his novels are driven by morals.


That's why Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. The great Englishman lacked such clear morals. Good does not always triumph. Evil is not always defeated in the end. And in spite of this, Shakespeare was clearly the stronger writer.

[blazeofglory]

Tolstoy is immortal since his novels are driven by morals.


That's why Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. The great Englishman lacked such clear morals. Good does not always triumph. Evil is not always defeated in the end. And in spite of this, Shakespeare was clearly the stronger writer.


You are right and we all are misdirected and hence the world we live in chaotic.

There has been abrasion in values. For this our classical writers account for. They have a fair account of the ills of society but not antidotes and that is why the world is getting sicker and sicker. Countries are waging a variety of wars with one another,some are warring for commerce, others for religion,some for instilling their cultural elements and still others for resources and territorial gains.

Today the reason why people are lost and do not know where the harbor is they are led by the storm of baser values

[stlukesguild]

Sorry but my harbor has been fully lost... thank God for online spell check!... I am now fully lost to the pleasures of inebriation. 12:30 AM and the Stones blasting full volume:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5580836005_ecdd34fc26.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcCTKtyzaXc&feature=related

I'll pick this up at a later time...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Stones? Really, StLukes? If there was a band I thought you wouldn't be into, it's them.

[JuniperWoolf]

Nah, it makes sense for him to like the stones. His favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmas, now that is unexpected.

[stlukesguild]

Nah, it makes sense for him to like the stones. His favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmas, now that is unexpected.

One of my favorites. I just love the merger of Americana with German Expressionism. My other favorites are probably pretty much to be expected: Casablanca, Dr. Strangelove, 2001:A Space Odyssey, Psycho, North by Northwest, The Seventh Seal, Persona, Virgin Spring, Vertigo, etc...

[Calidore]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]I just love the merger of Americana with German Expressionism.

Then hopefully you've seen Night of the Hunter.

[stlukesguild]

Funny you should ask. I'd only seen parts of it in passing until just a week or two ago when I finally got around to playing the video I had gotten from a friend for Christmas. Marvelous movie. Of course when I speak of German Expressionism I am thinking of the extremes of stylization that you find in the paintings of Edvard Munch:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5583809573_9c8d09745f.jpg

Max Beckmann:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5584399156_45f2b381a2_z.jpg

Otto Dix:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5584399230_914a94d9c6.jpg

E.L. Kirchner:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5583809803_78e2c28d38_b.jpg

and Emil Nolde (among many others)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5583809829_5825f0a4b1_z.jpg

as well as in such films as The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5257/5583809649_cb1d6164d0_z.jpg

Nosferatu:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5583829813_48a27bc185_b.jpg

M:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5584419410_6630dae5fa.jpg

The Man who Laughs:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5584419434_9487d0bdda.jpg

These had a major impact upon American horror films: The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, etc... as well as the visual dram of many subsequent films:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5583829743_410b5350b0_z.jpg

You can see it in Hitchcock, Orson Welles, in the Seventh Seal, its there in Coppola's Dracula, Dark City, Lars von Trier's films, and of course Tim Burton's works... which often offer up his own take upon that uniquely American campy merger of Expressionism... and Americana:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5584493776_000a347661.jpg

(Years ago I did my honors thesis on German Expressionism and its subsequent influence in the visual arts:skep::nod:)

[conartist]

Tolstoy is immortal since his novels are driven by morals.


That's why Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. The great Englishman lacked such clear morals. Good does not always triumph. Evil is not always defeated in the end. And in spite of this, Shakespeare was clearly the stronger writer.

I don't think that would be enough to make Tolstoy hate Shakespeare. Tolstoy, at least according to his own writings, had no idea how Shakespearean characters were supposed to resemble real people. Lear especially he could not imagine ever existing, seeing as the old king goes from being outraged to kind to furious to stately etc almost from speech to speech. Of course, these criticisms are so weak, and anyone that was fully invested in the plays would find them so irrelevant, that Tolstoy had to be deluding himself in some sense, and perhaps was simply utterly outraged by Shakespeare's amorality ... but i still couldn't imagine it being that simplistic when he's such a creative genius ...

[conartist]

As for what makes a classic novel ... it's like asking what makes a classic piece of music or art. It's a novel that's really really good; themes, philosophy, politics only matter once you've registered that the novel's really really good. Aesthetics and the depth of characterization are what really matter.

[Drkshadow03]

As for what makes a classic novel ... it's like asking what makes a classic piece of music or art. It's a novel that's really really good; themes, philosophy, politics only matter once you've registered that the novel's really really good. Aesthetics and the depth of characterization are what really matter.

Nah, that makes no sense. Why would a theme/philosophy/political perspective suddenly only become relevant and worth discussing if a book is well-written and possesses depth of characterization? That belittles the value of themes/philosophies/politics and then it becomes a question of why discuss them at all if they're so insignificant. After all, if they only have value if the aesthetic and characters are up to par then whatever themes a book is dealing with can't really be that important or significant in the first place. Or to put it another way if the themes/philosophy/political perspective isn't worth discussing outside of the book then they probably aren't worth discussing at all.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think an important relationship exists between theme and style, as well as content and expression. The best art uses its aesthetic techniques to defamiliarize us from our world and consequently help us it see whatever issues it covers in a fresh light. However, that doesn't necessarily mean theme is subservient to aesthetics and only matters if the style is up to snuff. Arthur C. Clarke explores some fairly interesting philosophical issues in his science fiction, but his writing is rather bland and simple.

Characterization is an even trickier category. What I've read of Jorge Luis Borges (Ficciones) suggests to me he is a writer that excels at aesthetics and theme, but one not particularly interested in writing what I would consider deep characters.

[JCamilo]

Nah, that makes no sense. Why would a theme/philosophy/political perspective suddenly only become relevant and worth discussing if a book is well-written and possesses depth of characterization? That belittles the value of themes/philosophies/politics and then it becomes a question of why discuss them at all if they're so insignificant. After all, if they only have value if tlihe aesthetic and characters are up to par then whatever themes a book is dealing with can't really be that important or significant in the first place. Or to put it another way if the themes/philosophy/political perspective isn't worth discussing outside of the book then they probably aren't worth discussing at all.

I suppose he didnt explained well, but I do think ideas get more persuasive and will be better remembered if the writer is good. Most of good philosophers are good writers, trainned by rules from the time of Cicero or Plato. Even complexity like Schopenhauer's text is well written. And maybe he means, a book lasts due to it, while there could be many socialist poets, Shelley remained longer...


Now don't get me wrong, I do think an important relationship exists between theme and style, as well as content and expression. The best art uses its aesthetic techniques to defamiliarize us from our world and consequently help us it see whatever issues it covers in a fresh light. However, that doesn't necessarily mean theme is subservient to aesthetics and only matters if the style is up to snuff. Arthur C. Clarke explores some fairly interesting philosophical issues in his science fiction, but his writing is rather bland and simple.

But Clarke was better than the majority of his fellow pulp sci-fic writter. He only looks as bad when we compare him with guys like Wells, Bradbury and perhaps Philip K.Dick. Anyways, this is a good example, Clarke most memorable book is a movie. Where someone with a foot on geniality gave to Clarke ideas an aesthetic power that keeps the movie much more alive than the book. It is so much that people do not notice two atheists skeptical dudes made a movie about creationism.


Characterization is an even trickier category. What I've read of Jorge Luis Borges (Ficciones) suggests to me he is a writer that excels at aesthetics and theme, but one not particularly interested in writing what I would consider deep characters.

Yes, many texts do not need characterization, a novel trait, not a literature trait. Anyways, what means deep? I see this much used if the character goes in inner thinking, dostoieviskan style. And I bet many people can say Harry Potter is not as deep as Ulysses, even if Potter's inner feeling is probally presented more than Ulysses. I would say, a deep character should be a meaningful character, and Funes, Borges himself, Asterion... are deep.

[Drkshadow03]

I suppose he didnt explained well, but I do think ideas get more persuasive and will be better remembered if the writer is good. Most of good philosophers are good writers, trainned by rules from the time of Cicero or Plato. Even complexity like Schopenhauer's text is well written. And maybe he means, a book lasts due to it, while there could be many socialist poets, Shelley remained longer...



But Clarke was better than the majority of his fellow pulp sci-fic writter. He only looks as bad when we compare him with guys like Wells, Bradbury and perhaps Philip K.Dick. Anyways, this is a good example, Clarke most memorable book is a movie. Where someone with a foot on geniality gave to Clarke ideas an aesthetic power that keeps the movie much more alive than the book. It is so much that people do not notice two atheists skeptical dudes made a movie about creationism.



Yes, many texts do not need characterization, a novel trait, not a literature trait. Anyways, what means deep? I see this much used if the character goes in inner thinking, dostoieviskan style. And I bet many people can say Harry Potter is not as deep as Ulysses, even if Potter's inner feeling is probally presented more than Ulysses. I would say, a deep character should be a meaningful character, and Funes, Borges himself, Asterion... are deep.

Most of your comments I think compliments what I said rather than contradicts. I recently read this blog post that addresses some of the issues we've all been talking about in an interesting way:

http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2011/02/27/style-is-story-is-style/

[stlukesguild]

I don't think that would be enough to make Tolstoy hate Shakespeare. Tolstoy, at least according to his own writings, had no idea how Shakespearean characters were supposed to resemble real people. Lear especially he could not imagine ever existing, seeing as the old king goes from being outraged to kind to furious to stately etc almost from speech to speech. Of course, these criticisms are so weak, and anyone that was fully invested in the plays would find them so irrelevant, that Tolstoy had to be deluding himself in some sense, and perhaps was simply utterly outraged by Shakespeare's amorality ... but i still couldn't imagine it being that simplistic when he's such a creative genius ...

Geniuses are driven by the same passions as anyone else... including jealousy. Plato recognized his own inability to ever surpass Homer on purely aesthetic terms, and so he targeted him on moral terms. Tolstoy, ever the moralist, quite likely despised the fact that such an "immoral/amoral" writer should stand as the towering figure of Western literature. He made attempts to undermine Shakespeare on aesthetic terms, but as you noted, these were weak criticisms at best. There will always be animosity between the artist who imagines himself as being a visionary... a prophet... and imagines that the role of art is the ennoblement of mankind and the artist who recognizes himself as an artist and understands that Oscar Wilde was right when he declared that all art is meaningless.

[mortalterror]

When people tell me they don't like classics, I tell them that's impossible. Classics aren't just one thing. Classics are hundreds of different things. Whatever type of person you are, there's a classic for you, because a classic is just the best of whatever type of writing you enjoy. There are classic thrillers, mysteries, horror stories, and fantasies. If you like war movies, you will like The Iliad. It's got a part where one man holds off an army at the point of his spear from the wreck of a burning battleship. The same things that draw people to South Park will draw them to Aristophanes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nah, it makes sense for him to like the stones. His favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmas, now that is unexpected.
While a bit of a surprise, I can get why he'd like A Nightmare Before Christimas. It's wonderfully artistic. But The Rolling Stones are just so .... oh, what's the word .... oh, yes, I have it: horrible. Simplistic, overrated, untalented, and just so boring.

[conartist]

Nah, that makes no sense. Why would a theme/philosophy/political perspective suddenly only become relevant and worth discussing if a book is well-written and possesses depth of characterization? That belittles the value of themes/philosophies/politics and then it becomes a question of why discuss them at all if they're so insignificant. After all, if they only have value if the aesthetic and characters are up to par then whatever themes a book is dealing with can't really be that important or significant in the first place. Or to put it another way if the themes/philosophy/political perspective isn't worth discussing outside of the book then they probably aren't worth discussing at all.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think an important relationship exists between theme and style, as well as content and expression. The best art uses its aesthetic techniques to defamiliarize us from our world and consequently help us it see whatever issues it covers in a fresh light. However, that doesn't necessarily mean theme is subservient to aesthetics and only matters if the style is up to snuff. Arthur C. Clarke explores some fairly interesting philosophical issues in his science fiction, but his writing is rather bland and simple.

Characterization is an even trickier category. What I've read of Jorge Luis Borges (Ficciones) suggests to me he is a writer that excels at aesthetics and theme, but one not particularly interested in writing what I would consider deep characters.

An isolated paragraph - even an isolated sentence - can make a worthwhile philosophical/social/political/whatyouwill point. Obviously I'm not saying that these things aren't worthwhile in or out of literature. I was simply talking about what is particular to a novel: characters; long beautiful rhapsodic prose. Arthur Clarke explores interesting themes, creates nothing characters and can't write well. There are no classic novels by Arthur Clarke.

[Drkshadow03]

Obviously I'm not saying that these things aren't worthwhile in or out of literature.

Really because given that you wrote this in your original comment:


themes, philosophy, politics only matter once you've registered that the novel's really really good. Aesthetics and the depth of characterization are what really matter.

I don't see how it's obvious you weren't saying that.

[conartist]

I was saying that within the novel those things are considered after a connection with the characters and the artistry of the work has been made. "It's a novel that's really really good; themes, philosophy, politics only matter once you've registered that the novel's really really good." As in the novel in which these themes are being presented. As in the novel whose strength is being appraised. My statement simply meant that you look at other things first, in assessing a novel. It had nothing to do with the independent worth of ideas.

[JCamilo]

An isolated paragraph - even an isolated sentence - can make a worthwhile philosophical/social/political/whatyouwill point. Obviously I'm not saying that these things aren't worthwhile in or out of literature. I was simply talking about what is particular to a novel: characters; long beautiful rhapsodic prose. Arthur Clarke explores interesting themes, creates nothing characters and can't write well. There are no classic novels by Arthur Clarke.


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).

[conartist]

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).

Anything is possible, but what you're saying is the equivalent of artists having forgotten Picasso and Matisse and instead studying and admiring stills from Family Guy... maybe not that ridiculous, but nearing the same order. It's like throwing away Fellini for Michael Bay.

[JCamilo]

Imagine someone mentioning that Anatole France would be less read or recalled than Saint-Exupery...

[Pensive]

Probably any novel which has lived up to the test of times...

[The Comedian]

Probably any novel which has lived up to the test of times...

You know, I agree with you Pensive. I think what when we use the term "classic", time (and all the cultural filtering that accompanies it) is what distinguishes a classic book from all the rest. I guess that this is why I'm fairly critical of modern writers being included in literary anthologies. . .there's a part of me that wonders this: "How do we really know that this writer is any good?" This of course, begs me to define "good". . .for that there's endless debate. But, for me, at least one criterion is that the writer appeals to (offers meaning to) more than a couple generations.

I mean, I was looking at an old cookbook the other day, and I saw a recipe for lamb heart with whipped pears and another one for (essentially) spinach pizza. Now why did pizza make it and and the lamb heart and whipped pears not make it to "classic" status?

[Calidore]

There's a produce/meat store near me that has always has fresh lamb hearts, so somebody's buying them (though I live in between heavily Indian and heavily Korean neighborhoods; the store's closer to the former). They even had fresh lamb heads once.

Offhand I'd say that the pizza is less gross, and reality TV aside, people prefer less gross. That said, since I have access to lamb hearts, any chance of posting the recipe so my friends and I can demonstrate our manliness?

[Calidore]

It occurs to me that a couple of different definitions of "classic" are at work here:

1) Popular -- It's a classic because lots of people still like it even when it's older than they are.

2) Heavy -- It's a classic even though hardly anyone actually likes it because it struck People of Thought as something Deep and Profound and thus must be inflicted on students forever that they may be Enlightened.

[EricW]

Classic = moral, ethical and political potency relevant to the human condition.

[Oxyster]

Something everybody wants to have, but nobody wants to read.
-Mark Twain.

[cafolini]

Something everybody wants to have, but nobody wants to read.
-Mark Twain.

Good one, Oxyster. Clemens was surprisingly succint and on the nail almost all the time.

[Pierre Menard]

Classic = moral, ethical and political potency relevant to the human condition.


What a terrible definition of 'classic'.

Whose morals? Which society's and time periods' ethics?

Political potency? Whose? Yours?

So a book with terrible prose, poor characterization, technically deficient and so on can be a classic, if it's 'moral' and 'politically potent'?

[Darcy88]

Truth and beauty.

[osho]

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.

[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.

[hypatia_]

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


Based on what standards?