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.

[Chester]

I think we're pushing things by analogizing famous people/events in history with classic literature. But just to keep pushing, I would say that scholars know Gavrilo Princip because they understand that in one single act he unwittingly changed the entire course of the 20th century. I still contend the average man on the street hasn't a clue. Therefore, if Princip was a novel, scholars might call him a classic. The mainstream wouldn't.

Does that help?

[aabbcc]

My two cents:

So What do you think can be classified as literature?
I don't think any written material can be considered literature; literature, in my view, is merely a subcategory of 'written material', and as such is not defined only by its form, i.e. by the fact it is written. Literature is primary defined by being an art, only later by the form it is expressed in; the easiest would be to say that literature is the form of art which is expressed through the means of (written) words and language (which is its differentia specifica from other forms of art) to convey concepts.
Of course, I realise that this kind of definition brings the eternal question "but what is actually art? and how do you differentiate non-artistic from artistic writing?", but that would be better to leave for some other discussion.

What is a classic?
This would require a rather lengthy elaboration. To be able to discuss what the concept of the "classic" means now, you would have to go back and see how it was used historically.
First it was used to stand for the authors of the classical antiquity, later also for the authors who wrote in "pure" language as opposed to emerging vulgar forms of Latin and who from the 'technical' point of view imitated the classics, and if you want to go even further in history, you could mark only authors of specific era as 'classics' because the era itself was later marked as 'classicism' (guess why), which evokes the similar problem as the one of defining 'classic' in music (because of the entire epoch named 'classical epoch', so strictly speaking by that scheme Mozart would be 'classic', but Chopin not, etc) - those are the cases in which the word 'classic' is used to represent works of specific time and place.

However, the word itself was actually mostly used to represent the most representative of its genre, even if you step out of literature - 'classics' of architecture are usually not 'classics' of belonging to certain art epoch, but are comprised out of all works which were representatives of its genres and streams; the term is likewise used in music. For some reason, though, we tend to be rather influenced by the 'myth of golden age' and its 'logical consequence' that - the further you are from golden age separated by time and change, the more 'degrading' you are - so usually no contemporary works are included as most representatives (of course, it is only until they are tested by the time and by whether they truly were the most representative, but we love to think that it is because there are "no more classics in our age" and that we are going downfall :D).

Still, this brings up some new problems, such as defining genre, defining stream, defining belonging to stream as conscious or not, etc; no matter how you put it, it is virtually impossible to say. Usually this problem gets solved by that people decide that not only 'best representatives' are included, but also most high of quality works (which then further brings issue of 'measuring' quality). And if you bring the education to the whole story, it gets even more complex, because it starts to assume that 'classic' is something you have to be familiar with by the education, that a part of making a 'classic' classic is it being recognised and taught as such, blah blah. Terrible, right? ;)

My best friend usually defines a classic by the rather fixed canon of works of the past which had influenced literature greatly and remained well-known and taught. Of course, his definition still means that it would be culturally biased to say which works are classic, but he technically has a point. By current standards, at least.

What makes a classic a classic and not just some old book?
A classic is "in da kanon", you will get it taught, mentioned and brought up as an example of whichever it is the classic of, and its worth has been recognised for generations. So, in a way, academia makes it.
Further, a classic is still 'actual', in sense of being read, studied, discussed, widely, as well as in academic setting as a part of studying Literature. Most of 'old books' are not, except by enthusiasts for that specific era or theme those books are about.
It also has to have influenced literature.

Is a classic defined simply by who produced it or should each work stand alone to be judged?
No, classic is not defined by an author, even when the author is already acknowledged. Each work alone.

What makes a great author great, quality, quantity, durability?
Again, quality is a difficult concept to debate, but yes, quality in the first place, followed by durability. Definitely not quantity.
I don't think there are "great" authors, only great works, which sometimes happen to be written by the same author.
Art is hard to judge, you can speak of it theoretically and try to find a 'pattern' for great work or author, but it is pretty pointless. In the end it always depends upon your taste, upon your education and upon your sensibility for art in general, not only written art. Assuming, of course, that you treat literature as art and not purely as 'amusement' in written form (sort of written variant of tv :D). If you treat it as 'amusement', then it is only your taste and nothing else.

[johann cruyff]

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.


...scholars know Gavrilo Princip because they understand that in one single act he unwittingly changed the entire course of the 20th century. I still contend the average man on the street hasn't a clue. Therefore, if Princip was a novel, scholars might call him a classic. The mainstream wouldn't.


Well,that's pretty much what I was trying to say with my previous post.I agree.

[PeterL]

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.

I tend to agree. it didn't have much impact even when it was written, and that small impact has diminished since then.

[JCamilo]

I must disagree, we still read The Divine Comedy and I doubt Kafka or Borges will be forgotten despite being allegories. Anyways, You may argue, they all are a bit more than Allegories, but so is Animal Farm (alongside with 1984 they are too representative of fall down of idealisms, a universal truth ,and this may lead Animal farm to a long life - after all, you could with some argument use the allegories of Animal farm to any revolution that ended not changing anything in the social sense - Even the French revolution, no?). But of course, speculation and nothing else.

as literature, it is all writen text, it is not art as suggested (so why would we use scietific literature, heh)...
and Classic was pretty much defined by JBI, nothing much to add, except we can also say, a Classic also can survive the lack of reading - returning is a power and proof of their qualities.

[aabbcc]

as literature, it is all writen text, it is not art as suggested (so why would we use scietific literature, heh)...


The imperfections of English. :flare: It doesn't differentiate... Gah, forget it. In my native language there is a clear distinction between literature as art, and literature as simply written material (two different words), I automatically 'translate' "literature" in my head to the first one. That's what I had in mind.

[JCamilo]

I dunno, altough there may be different, but in portuguese there is no difference either. I would understand you, literature is often refered as the art, but the thing, as borges would point out, there is no reality to us to be sure, so the not fictional systems of today would be the fictions of tomorrow... So, if art was what was created... who knows... what was created...

Anyways, I would love to chat about the topics of what is literature and art or what is classic, and I do not want to sound nasty to you Anastasija either, but if we think in the intentions of the thread starter, it is bit silly, no. Even if we figure out definitions that are good, that does not mean the discussions in this forum would follow our definitions, actually, considering how much authorities have worked with those questions in the past and they fall in watever people think, we can be sure, nothing will be defined.
We could talk about the sun and the warm day, no?

[JBI]

Borges wrote many allegories, but he didn't write them about set events. Orwell wrote about set events, and everything is a reference to a specific event, and not revolution in general. It is because of that that the book loses its longevity. Most people don't read history voluntarily, and if they did, only a scholar is likely to read contemporary commentary on historical events.

[kelby_lake]

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"?

well, a lot of very good books were written in 20th century. i know there's definitely a difference between a classic and a modern classic and a book can become a modern classic, normally if it's pre-1950. What would you call those books then?

[Chester]

I’m tempted to call them misnamed. A lot of great books were written in the 20th century, but I personally don’t like the term "modern classic." My guess is that the term started as a marketing device used by publishers like Penguin to hype their books. It’s like hearing something described as an "instant" classic. But it’s all gray area and I don’t think I can get very far arguing for some set period of time (100 years for example) before something is called a "classic." But my personal view on the matter is that "classic" ought to contain some notion of timelessness. And less than 100 years seems a blip in the grand history of literature. Just my opinion.

[Chester]

I might, in thinking about this further, be willing to concede to the idea that classic can also be thought of as prototypical. I can imagine somebody calling a Hemingway work a "classic 20th century piece". That is, it helps define that period of literature. I wouldn't call it a classic piece of literature. But a classic 20th century piece of literature. Maybe Animal Farm fits this category, or Catch 22, or whatever. Even within a single author's body of work, maybe we can use the word classic. "The Grapes of Wrath is the classic Steinbeck novel." I could go along with that definition of classic.

[kelby_lake]

yeah, that's my point really. a 20th century classic.

[JCamilo]

Borges wrote many allegories, but he didn't write them about set events. Orwell wrote about set events, and everything is a reference to a specific event, and not revolution in general. It is because of that that the book loses its longevity. Most people don't read history voluntarily, and if they did, only a scholar is likely to read contemporary commentary on historical events.


No sense. Borges wrote a considerable ammount of allegories about History (watever you call Set Events, I wonder how this would answer for Kafka and Dante), included his own life, Peron and all. In fact, I doubt you would have allegories that mean something else that isn't real or distant from a universal happening, after all that is what allegory is.
It is funny, but I can imagine a revolution where people took power, but with time a tyrant exercise such control, that no changes happened and one of the guys declared himself emperor, which was what was the revolution was supposed to end - And that was the french revolution, not the russian.
And, yes, this happens - but I think the quality of Animal Farm is beyond a simple historical reading. I do not see people caring about it when reading War and Peace and if that was true, all historical plays of Shakespeare would be forgotten by now, after all how many care about 100 years war.

[JBI]

As set events I mean as follows. Borges' most famous allegory (I would think), The Library of Babel, is allegorical about the post-modern human condition. Its themes and content can be read by anyone with the same effects. Animal farm is an allegory about Stalin, with each event in the book being a commentary on a real event. The book features nothing outside of history, and acts as a mere commentary, rather than a statement outside of its historical boundaries. Each significant thing in the book is relating to history. Everything in the book relates to history, and therefore the book can only be read in light of history. It is because of that, that only someone wanting to study the history of the dawn of the Soviet Union in depth will find the book very useful. Most people will just end up reading a text book, and satisfy themselves with dates and events. The book itself doesn't really go beyond its time and place, and therefore becomes more and more a period piece as the time after its events increases. Lets be honest, in 100 years, they will have enough historical events to satisfy themselves, and won't likely dwell on our century.

[JCamilo]

There is allegories about Rosas and the wars in argentina in XIX century, there is allegory about Peron and his raises to power as well. Not to mention himself.

And when I first read Animal Farm as a kid I had no idea about the history- So, I would say your claim is truting in too much absolutes here.
More and even - if we do not go for speficics, you are just claiming that books that have a level of interpretation related to historical events would lose interest if the reader had no historical perception. I would say, he would miss it - but I do not see people not reading Aneid when they are not aware of the political propaganda that work is or since, we barelly know about it, Not reading the Iliad because we unware of the Trojan war.
1001 Nights was read and no one could say that 1001 Nights actually reflects the historical events. I do not see people needing to know the history of french to read Tale of Two Cities or Miserables.
I frankly think the history of Animal Farm goes beyond time and space and the theme of ideal destruction, of how revolutions in name of the "People" fail when Power (because power corrupts) starts to get separeted from them - it was not just the theme of Soviet Revolution as the name Napoleon can withstands.

[stlukesguild]

I must agree with JBI's assertion that Animal Farm is so completely an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalin that it almost verges upon a parody. Perhaps this alone will not serve to limit a work of literature's life expectancy... but I will say that it would seem obvious that works which demand a great deal of extraneous knowledge on the part of the reader must offer a reward worthy of the effort. Dante survives... in spite of the demands his work often places upon the reader as a result of the brilliance of the work. It is worth the effort. The Iliad is worth the effort. I suspect that Kafka and Borges will remain worthy of the effort. Animal Farm? I don't think it put forward any ideas that were overly profound or original. I don't remember being overly impressed with the beauty of the writing. And perhaps even more telling... unlike Kafka and Borges I don't see a great number of subsequent writers of real ability looking to Orwell as a major source of inspiration.

By the way... as a huge lover of Borges I am more than aware that he has written allegories of Peron and of Argentinean politics... but I don't recall these as being his strongest works in any sense. If they were... I'd probably be willing to put forth the effort to learn more... just as I willingly went out of my way to learn more on any number of topics ranging from Gnostic "heretics" to the relationship between Borges and Neruda when his strongest work led me in such a direction.

[sofia82]

Classics can be divided into:

1. The anceint Greek and Roman literary works
2. The books written in the period and the form of classical literature (which is itself a return to and revival of the ancients
3. The canon determines which is classical which is not, although in the twentieth century the definition of canon chnages

[JCamilo]

I must agree with JBI's assertion that Animal Farm is so completely an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalin that it almost verges upon a parody. Perhaps this alone will not serve to limit a work of literature's life expectancy... but I will say that it would seem obvious that works which demand a great deal of extraneous knowledge on the part of the reader must offer a reward worthy of the effort. Dante survives... in spite of the demands his work often places upon the reader as a result of the brilliance of the work. It is worth the effort. The Iliad is worth the effort. I suspect that Kafka and Borges will remain worthy of the effort. Animal Farm? I don't think it put forward any ideas that were overly profound or original. I don't remember being overly impressed with the beauty of the writing. And perhaps even more telling... unlike Kafka and Borges I don't see a great number of subsequent writers of real ability looking to Orwell as a major source of inspiration.

There goes two different things:

1 - Allegories survive - as any art work - despite the relation with real facts and watnot. That is not the reason why Animal Farm will or not be forgotten. I am also aware that Orwell wrote it as soviet revolution allegory, but luckly, the survival of the work also depends of the interpretation the work and this interpretation is something beyond what the writer wanted. So, being the allegory of Soviet Union is not the real problem. (by the way, I think people will study the soviet union as much we still study the crusades or anything else.)
2 - Animal Farm have or not artistic quality to grant immortality.I think they have. It is a great book in my opinion. (Never thinking that is better than Eneid, Iliad, etc). Bradbury and every single dude who wrote a dystopian novel is coming after Orwell. He is quite influential for someone who wrote so little fiction.


By the way... as a huge lover of Borges I am more than aware that he has written allegories of Peron and of Argentinean politics... but I don't recall these as being his strongest works in any sense. If they were... I'd probably be willing to put forth the effort to learn more... just as I willingly went out of my way to learn more on any number of topics ranging from Gnostic "heretics" to the relationship between Borges and Neruda when his strongest work led me in such a direction.

The Alleph is an allegory of Borges's relationship with Estella Canto (I fail to see how an allegory would cease to be if is regarding someone's personal life or social life). The Babel Library an allegory of his work as librarian.
Intrusa an allegory of the rivalirty in argentina's civil wars. Di Giovanni text about his troubles while translating Borges help out because they deal with the trouble of references to specific argentina terms and events. (Yes, I am aware that when someone writes "Happened during Rosas's regime", he is not exactly making an allegory, but I suggest it because you said you likes borges anyways) My whole point listing Borges and all others is that being an allegory have nothing to do with immortality. I doubt 99% of the readers of St.John book of revelations have any notion about the specific time frame reference (Which leads to all kind of interpreations not related to Nero).

[JCamilo]

Classics can be divided into:

1. The anceint Greek and Roman literary works
2. The books written in the period and the form of classical literature (which is itself a return to and revival of the ancients
3. The canon determines which is classical which is not, although in the twentieth century the definition of canon chnages

The Canon does not decide anything - It is just the list of classics, basically, a consequence. What decides is history and society.

[sofia82]

The Canon does not decide anything - It is just the list of classics, basically, a consequence. What decides is history and society.

So I have to change it to Classicals determine the Canon, thank you for your correction.

[stlukesguild]

The Alleph is an allegory of Borges's relationship with Estella Canto (I fail to see how an allegory would cease to be if is regarding someone's personal life or social life).

Far more importantly the Aleph was an allegory on Neruda (the poet who sought to put everything into his poems... ala the Cantico General... and quite opposite of Borges own stripped-down aesthetics. Beyond their aesthetic differences Borges was very critical of Neruda's blindness to the abuses of Communism under Stalin... as well as their abuses by various leftist Latin-American leaders. Of course the Aleph was far more. It was also a comment upon infinity, immortality, omnipotence and suggests that such (as he made clear elsewhere in his essays) may be quite insidious concepts not to be so wished for.

The Babel Library an allegory of his work as librarian.

Certainly it is rooted in his love of books and libraries... and as someone who lived in books the library would be an obvious symbol of life and infinity... but on a much larger scale the Library of Babel is an allegory on the concept of infinity... a comment upon man's limited knowledge in an infinite universe... an exploration of the question of the possibility of something being unique or finite (such as the individual human) within an infinite universe. These ideas are far more universal and far more important to an appreciation than any knowledge of Borge's work experience.

Of course Borges does make allusions to his own personal history and the history of Argentina and Latin America... although as he stated in various essays he was not the least interested in being a Latin-American or Argentinean writer through writing primarily of or about those themes. Borges also made many allusions to any number of literary figures (actual writers and their fictional inventions) ranging from Don Quixote, the unknown inventor of the sonnet, Shakespeare, Homer, Gnostic writers, Icelandic bards and Viking warriors, Sherlock Holmes, etc... Indeed, as one of the most well-read writers he assumes a great deal and demands a great deal of his audience... but these demands are rewarded with a aesthetic experience that is worthy of the effort. An allegory... a historical novel... a satire may all become too obscure if the work does not function on a far larger... more "universal" level. There are certainly satirical poems by Pope and Swift (among others) that have become almost unintelligible to all but specialists because they refer to events and persons largely unknown without offering an aesthetic experience great enough to make researching these seem worth the effort. Such has not yet occurred with Animal Farm... but with time I can certainly see it becoming more and more of a period piece.

[stlukesguild]

Bradbury and every single dude who wrote a dystopian novel is coming after Orwell. He is quite influential for someone who wrote so little fiction.

Actually there are quite a few great Dystopian novels before Animal Farm, including H.G. Wells' Time Machine and The Shape of Things to Come, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, any number of works by Kafka, Huxley's Brave New World, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, Karel Čapek's War with the Newts, etc... Of course I am not suggesting that all of these are superior to Animal Farm, but rather questioning the supposition that all the dystopian literature post-Animal Farm was rooted solely in Orwell. I have no doubt that Kafka has had a far more reaching influence upon such than Orwell.

[aabbcc]

Anyways, I would love to chat about the topics of what is literature and art or what is classic, and I do not want to sound nasty to you Anastasija either, but if we think in the intentions of the thread starter, it is bit silly, no. Even if we figure out definitions that are good, that does not mean the discussions in this forum would follow our definitions, actually, considering how much authorities have worked with those questions in the past and they fall in watever people think, we can be sure, nothing will be defined.
We could talk about the sun and the warm day, no?
I actually think it's a great thing to discuss - despite the fact the definitions will always vary from one authority to the other - as long as nobody pretends to have the monopoly over truth.
The sun and warm day are great too. :D

[JCamilo]

So I have to change it to Classicals determine the Canon, thank you for your correction.

One good thing about Harold Bloom is that he do know a lot about literature and is totally focused in in the literary merits of the texts. One bad thing is that he ended creating the impression there is an old dude, with long beard, dressed in black burning books that he didn't like, hitting kids with a wood cane saying :
"I am the Cannon, I am the Canon, feed me or I will obliterate you!"

If we shrug and see that the Canon is just a list of books, we are going to see how important is this thing without importance. (And by the way, didn't want to sound like correcting you, I am yoda, you young apprendice, etc. )

[JCamilo]

Far more importantly the Aleph was an allegory on Neruda (the poet who sought to put everything into his poems... ala the Cantico General... and quite opposite of Borges own stripped-down aesthetics. Beyond their aesthetic differences Borges was very critical of Neruda's blindness to the abuses of Communism under Stalin... as well as their abuses by various leftist Latin-American leaders. Of course the Aleph was far more. It was also a comment upon infinity, immortality, omnipotence and suggests that such (as he made clear elsewhere in his essays) may be quite insidious concepts not to be so wished for.

Yes, I know there is a bit of irony in the Alleph related to Neruda and mostly, their own Walt Whitmanian take on the universe. But I wonder if we can classify something as blatant as allegory - Borges have a rival who misunderstands the Alleph and is famous. He just is not called Neruda. But the other aspects of the story - He started to write it when he was about to ask Canto to marry him, he ended when their relationship was getting over, He used to label her as his muse, as it is the dead woman, he was seeking a true great work and fealt that without her he would be unable to go on (even the prize of literature that he lost was something that happened with him just recently as well).
Yes, you are right that the theme of The Alleph is neither about Neruda or Canto - that was just one aspect, the allegorical aspect of the text, and with borges, there is always more than one aspect.
Aside this, it is true that Borges was always a critic to the sovietic communism and shards have hit Neruda in the process but funny enough, to borges, Neruda - a second rate romantic poet - was a superior poet in the political poems. I think you confused a little, Borges was the one attacked by Neruda and others for the "blindness" towards the actions of leaders in SA, even because we barelly have lefty governaments here, only in the 60's Chile and Brasil had such leaders and by them, Borges was already famous as "pro-militars, pro-tyrants, etc. Borges refusal to acknowledge the massacre in the early 70's in Buenos Aires is quite famous.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]The Babel Library an allegory of his work as librarian.

Certainly it is rooted in his love of books and libraries... and as someone who lived in books the library would be an obvious symbol of life and infinity... but on a much larger scale the Library of Babel is an allegory on the concept of infinity... a comment upon man's limited knowledge in an infinite universe... an exploration of the question of the possibility of something being unique or finite (such as the individual human) within an infinite universe. These ideas are far more universal and far more important to an appreciation than any knowledge of Borge's work experience.

I would not classify the infite as allegory there. It is the infinite even there. But Borges relates how he created it after he started to work in the library, where the books are not marked and when he discovered how the other workers didn't give a damn about it, creating a lack of order that he could barelly understands at first.



Of course Borges does make allusions to his own personal history and the history of Argentina and Latin America... although as he stated in various essays he was not the least interested in being a Latin-American or Argentinean writer through writing primarily of or about those themes.

And that is how a true Argie would say. Argentina, mainly Buenos Aires which is what matters here, was in South American the most european of all cities. They burrowed the culture and having a rich first half of the century they could copy the Europeans better than anyone, turning into a rich city with a great culture (hence the strong reading habit there that was a fertile place for Borges and his generation of great writers). They have that snob way - I am not from SA, just living here.
A funny way to analyse this is studying the history of rivalirity between Brazil and Argentina in football.
Another clue is how Borges dismissed it but also dismissed the impossibity to run from it (For example, saying that all National Writers are not national at all).


Borges also made many allusions to any number of literary figures (actual writers and their fictional inventions) ranging from Don Quixote, the unknown inventor of the sonnet, Shakespeare, Homer, Gnostic writers, Icelandic bards and Viking warriors, Sherlock Holmes, etc... Indeed, as one of the most well-read writers he assumes a great deal and demands a great deal of his audience... but these demands are rewarded with a aesthetic experience that is worthy of the effort. An allegory... a historical novel... a satire may all become too obscure if the work does not function on a far larger... more "universal" level. There are certainly satirical poems by Pope and Swift (among others) that have become almost unintelligible to all but specialists because they refer to events and persons largely unknown without offering an aesthetic experience great enough to make researching these seem worth the effort. Such has not yet occurred with Animal Farm... but with time I can certainly see it becoming more and more of a period piece.

Of course, as I said: What matters is Not if it is an allegory (We are going to find also several works that are not an allegory, but since they are making reference to specific events, they fadded away) but what matters is if the work is good or not.


Actually there are quite a few great Dystopian novels before Animal Farm, including H.G. Wells' Time Machine and The Shape of Things to Come, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, any number of works by Kafka, Huxley's Brave New World, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, Karel Čapek's War with the Newts, etc... Of course I am not suggesting that all of these are superior to Animal Farm, but rather questioning the supposition that all the dystopian literature post-Animal Farm was rooted solely in Orwell. I have no doubt that Kafka has had a far more reaching influence upon such than Orwell.

Yes, that is why I didn't said Orwell invented the dystopian novel. I was thinking more of 1984 since Animal Farm seems to me "how the dystopias come to be" rather than presenting one. But the main dystopian model is 1984 - Bradbury who knew all others, name it for example, as model of Fahrenheit 451 (which is maybe the best dystopian work we have after the 50's, considering both the book or the movie) and of course, not just in Orwell, as Brave New World will have influence every time the critics is rooted on consumism.
Kafka, of course, have more influence than Orwell in anything. (Close to Kafka, Borges, Joyce and a few others, Orwell is a minor writer, but this does mean he won't have his immortality).
Anyways, just see how Animal Farm have rooted his place in western culture despite the soviet relation because Orwell did a very good work there - from the option to use a fable (with great competence), using pigs as the "evil", creating sittuations for the characters (the horse trio for example, are lively as any character in the world) and the precision and efficience of the slogan "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" which I am sure will be repeated over and over, for any sittuation where democracy (and not the soviet regim) fails to treat with equality. I am sure you have seen it used in this context. That is one of the smells of immortality in my opinion and all because of Orwell talent.

[JBI]

JCamilo, your reading of Animal Farm seems to be a little basic, and your reading of Borges seems to be too focused on politics. Borges himself said he tried not to use any neologisms and complicated language as a way of not rooting his work in the period he was writing them in. You also seem to suggest that all of Borges' stories, if not any of them, will survive. I doubt very much that they will be read for political overtones, and think they will simply just be read for their themes on the human condition and the universe.

Orwell on the other hand will probably survive for his essays and for 1984. As it is, We is probably the best dystopian novel, and the first, and seems truer and more original than anything Orwell cooked up. Some things in 1984 seem to be borrowed, if not stolen from We, to the point of near-plagiarism. Orwell just has the striking ability to be quoted without being read, as he was quite fashionable for such activity in the previous generation, and that obsession seems to have carried down to this generation. Big Brother is in every text book on politics starting at the high school level. It is inevitable that kids will appear to have read more Orwell than they actually have, if they are being fed Orwell for breakfast. His sales do not even come close to the number of people who quote, and often misquote, him, showing a thick margin of pretend-readers.

[stlukesguild]

I think you confused a little, Borges was the one attacked by Neruda and others for the "blindness" towards the actions of leaders in SA, even because we barelly have lefty governaments here, only in the 60's Chile and Brasil had such leaders and by them, Borges was already famous as "pro-militars, pro-tyrants, etc. Borges refusal to acknowledge the massacre in the early 70's in Buenos Aires is quite famous.

I certainly don't think that Borges was ever pro-military or pro-tryrants. He signed any number of pro-democracy petitions, wrote numerous pro-democracy essays, and openly denounced the very concept of dictatorships: "Dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." He also openly spoke out against antisemitism and the support of the Nazis (I, a Jew, A Pedaogogy of Hatred, A disturbing Exposition, Definition of a Germanophile, etc...) that existed in a great deal of the Argentine society, press, and among the literati... this in spite of being a well-known lover of German culture. Later, Borges was unable to ignore the hypocrisy of those who railed against Anglo-American abuses and the despots that they supported while ignoring the very real and more horrific abuses that occurred with Communism... in the Soviet Union and abroad. Undoubtedly he had his blind spots and misunderstandings/misinterpretations of certain leaders, but never politicized his art anywhere near to the point of Neruda... to his detriment.

Criticism of Borges took the form of his being called "Jewish" (ie. not purely Argentinean enough) by those pro-German fascism and anti-Anglo-American. He was also criticized as creating literature that was not rooted in the real world, that focused to much on abstract themes and concepts as opposed to the lives of real men and women in Argentina. His writings were dismissed as too experimental and too strongly influenced by non-Argentine sources (Anglo-Saxon, Latin, German, American, Arabic, etc... literature). Most of the criticism came from leftist sources... including Neruda... who felt that Borges was the artist living outside reality in his proverbial ivory tower (or library, in Borges' case). Borges countered in his essay entitled The Author and Tradition, that the very absence of camels in the Koran was proof enough that it was an Arabian work, inferring that only someone trying to write an "Arab" work would purposefully include a camel thus suggesting that his exploration of universal existential concerns was just as Argentine as writing about gauchos and tangos (both of which he also did). Both Borges and Neruda have survived due to their production of equally brilliant work, but Neruda certainly comes off the worse in his work when it does become openly politicized. The pro-Communist/Stalinist portions of the Canto General are certainly the most embarrassing.

I would not classify the infite as allegory there. It is the infinite even there. But Borges relates how he created it after he started to work in the library, where the books are not marked and when he discovered how the other workers didn't give a damn about it, creating a lack of order that he could barelly understands at first.

That may have been the initial impetus of the work... but the source of inspiration and what a work of art eventually becomes are not necessarily one and the same. The Library of Babel is most certainly an allegory of the infinite... of man's struggle to find order and sense within the infinite... of the almost comic absurdity and certitude of failure of these efforts. He speaks of the search for that one book... the catalog of the library... which undoubtedly is the search for the one book (religious? scientific?) which will explain the universe. There are battles between men of opposing beliefs and differing regions... and there is the very opening sentence, which should be a clue as to Borges' intentions, "The Universe (which others call the Library)..." Again, the idea to utilize the library as such a symbol may have grown out of Borges' personal work experience (as well as his obsessive reading habits), but these need not be known to fully understand the symbolic allusions. This is less true of a work such as Animal Farm.

Orwell is a minor writer, but this does mean he won't have his immortality.

But in the long run that is exactly what being a minor writer means. certainly I have far more modern literature on my shelves than I do literature of any other period. There is less of 19th century literature and far less from the Renaissance. As time goes by only the strongest works survive. The rest is relegated to the specialists. Certainly there must have been far more writers of real talent writing in Italy at the same time as Dante, Boccaccio, and Cavalcanti... but who else is still read? (And even Cavalcanti is not a household name even among some of the most well-read.) When future generations select the literature of the 20th century that remains "essential" just how highly will Animal Farm rank on that list considering all the other possibilities?

[stlukesguild]

We is probably the best dystopian novel, and the first, and seems truer and more original than anything Orwell cooked up. Some things in 1984 seem to be borrowed, if not stolen from We, to the point of near-plagiarism. Orwell just has the striking ability to be quoted without being read, as he was quite fashionable for such activity in the previous generation, and that obsession seems to have carried down to this generation. Big Brother is in every text book on politics starting at the high school level. It is inevitable that kids will appear to have read more Orwell than they actually have, if they are being fed Orwell for breakfast. His sales do not even come close to the number of people who quote, and often misquote, him, showing a thick margin of pretend-readers.

Of course Orwell also had the "advantage" of writing in English while Zamyatin was banned by the Soviet censors and eventually allowed to emigrate to France. The book, which exists in draft form in 1919 (and was banned by official censors in 1921) was not published until 1924, in New York. Orwell has openly admitted to having been deeply inspired by the book. I must read this one again. Its been a while.

[JCamilo]

JCamilo, your reading of Animal Farm seems to be a little basic,

I found funny you trying to imply that my reading is basic while my critic to you is that your interpretation of Animal Farm is basic.


and your reading of Borges seems to be too focused on politics.

Muah, If you consider this very little (where the topic of allegory is brought) to represent all my readings of Borges, You do seem to have a problem of not understand to the context of this discussion. There is no point to deal with others topics of Borges if I was pointing to you that borges wrote allegorical works with relation to political/historical facts since you seem to have ignored it in your post. I mean, stlukesguild clearly moved this discussion ahead because he reckonize it.


Borges himself said he tried not to use any neologisms and complicated language as a way of not rooting his work in the period he was writing them in.

neologism such as those by Joyce. Borges used a considerable ammount of specific language of Argentina when he dealt with the appropriate themes and one of his biggest critics to Martin Fierro and other of the texts gauchos was the lack of real language. But this of course is only possible if you read borges in the original.


You also seem to suggest that all of Borges' stories, if not any of them, will survive. I doubt very much that they will be read for political overtones, and think they will simply just be read for their themes on the human condition and the universe.

I have no idea where you got this idea that all this stories will survive. I only listed 3, all of them among the best of Borges, so good options of what will survive of Borges. (Besides the obvious since the guy essays already survive on their own) - and I never said they will be read by the political tones - altough Borges was read a lot like that - and that is exaclty what I am arguing about Animal Farm while you insist only those with familiarity with the soviet revolution will read it I argue several Stories survive despite the History.


Orwell on the other hand will probably survive for his essays and for 1984. As it is, We is probably the best dystopian novel, and the first, and seems truer and more original than anything Orwell cooked up. Some things in 1984 seem to be borrowed, if not stolen from We, to the point of near-plagiarism. Orwell just has the striking ability to be quoted without being read, as he was quite fashionable for such activity in the previous generation, and that obsession seems to have carried down to this generation. Big Brother is in every text book on politics starting at the high school level. It is inevitable that kids will appear to have read more Orwell than they actually have, if they are being fed Orwell for breakfast. His sales do not even come close to the number of people who quote, and often misquote, him, showing a thick margin of pretend-readers.

I doubt and I already have give the example about the the "All animals are equal.." that is as popular as the term Big Brother and used everywhere, not just with relation with sovietic union because the universaility of the ideas in Animal farm (which is how allegories survive anyways).

[JCamilo]

I certainly don't think that Borges was ever pro-military or pro-tryrants. He signed any number of pro-democracy petitions, wrote numerous pro-democracy essays, and openly denounced the very concept of dictatorships: "Dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." He also openly spoke out against antisemitism and the support of the Nazis (I, a Jew, A Pedaogogy of Hatred, A disturbing Exposition, Definition of a Germanophile, etc...) that existed in a great deal of the Argentine society, press, and among the literati... this in spite of being a well-known lover of German culture. Later, Borges was unable to ignore the hypocrisy of those who railed against Anglo-American abuses and the despots that they supported while ignoring the very real and more horrific abuses that occurred with Communism... in the Soviet Union and abroad. Undoubtedly he had his blind spots and misunderstandings/misinterpretations of certain leaders, but never politicized his art anywhere near to the point of Neruda... to his detriment.

Borges was pro-militar in one sense, and that was a romantic sense. In a country from Latin America there is nothing romantic about militars. Borges was indeed the first to attack Nazism (consider that Argentina was almost pro-nazi during that time) and I am certain he was no favorable of the tyrants and all abuse. But Borges was almost naive when dealing with humans, supporting militars just because they throwed Peron out (who Borges really hated) and you know... Borges is what we could call aristocratic (in the literary sense), surpoting Carlyle quotes about democracy didn't helped him much and he was heavily accused of being pro-militars. Of course, being the most important intelectual of Latian America, during the cold war period where other intelectuals are "supposed" to have a side (Sartre, Neruda Himself for example) was seem (wrongly) as supporting the sittuation.
He had more fame for this that anything else, and that is what I am saying and mostly likely reason of his non-nobel nomination.


Criticism of Borges took the form of his being called "Jewish" (ie. not purely Argentinean enough) by those pro-German fascism and anti-Anglo-American. He was also criticized as creating literature that was not rooted in the real world, that focused to much on abstract themes and concepts as opposed to the lives of real men and women in Argentina. His writings were dismissed as too experimental and too strongly influenced by non-Argentine sources (Anglo-Saxon, Latin, German, American, Arabic, etc... literature). Most of the criticism came from leftist sources... including Neruda... who felt that Borges was the artist living outside reality in his proverbial ivory tower (or library, in Borges' case). Borges countered in his essay entitled The Author and Tradition, that the very absence of camels in the Koran was proof enough that it was an Arabian work, inferring that only someone trying to write an "Arab" work would purposefully include a camel thus suggesting that his exploration of universal existential concerns was just as Argentine as writing about gauchos and tangos (both of which he also did). Both Borges and Neruda have survived due to their production of equally brilliant work, but Neruda certainly comes off the worse in his work when it does become openly politicized. The pro-Communist/Stalinist portions of the Canto General are certainly the most embarrassing.

You know, I think Borges was lying about the Camels (he did it once or while, fair game I think) because I once read a portuguese translation of Koran and there was a camel there. Anyways, I agree with Borges point - Much of the pressure was to him to have a side during that world of two-sides and to Borges world was slightly more complicated. I understand also - Ernesto Sábato, another good writer who had difficulties with Borges, later in a joint interview with Borges said to him "you are a writer for writers.", placing Borges in a level of writing that would give him his ivory tower. An Intelectual.
I also prefer Neruda when he was romantic and his ode to Stalin is awful. But I saw Borges saying that and sometimes I wonder if he was trully doing a criticism, if he saw something I can not see or if it was another of Borges Jokes. (Btw, in terms of poetry, I think Fernando Pessoa surpassed both, even in his Walt Whitmanism).


That may have been the initial impetus of the work... but the source of inspiration and what a work of art eventually becomes are not necessarily one and the same.

Of course not, but still an allegory of his library. But again, Allegory is a form, what the text became is always something else.


The Library of Babel is most certainly an allegory of the infinite... of man's struggle to find order and sense within the infinite... of the almost comic absurdity and certitude of failure of these efforts. He speaks of the search for that one book... the catalog of the library... which undoubtedly is the search for the one book (religious? scientific?) which will explain the universe. There are battles between men of opposing beliefs and differing regions... and there is the very opening sentence, which should be a clue as to Borges' intentions, "The Universe (which others call the Library)..." Again, the idea to utilize the library as such a symbol may have grown out of Borges' personal work experience (as well as his obsessive reading habits), but these need not be known to fully understand the symbolic allusions. This is less true of a work such as Animal Farm.

Yes, Yes. Borges, as I said, is in a level on his own. I really think only Joyce managed a literary work with such power and ambition (as much borges is not ambitious) in the XX century. I am not comparing the quality of both, Borges is superior and all.
An allegory can have more than one meaning. He used labyrinth (a library) for the universe before (other use of his symbolism is using a Book), they are all part of a system of symbolism that we can classify as borgesian. But here enters the allegory - The Library is not just any library (any library is the infinite) but also his own library. Depths and depths in borges allegories.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Orwell is a minor writer, but this does mean he won't have his immortality.

But in the long run that is exactly what being a minor writer means. certainly I have far more modern literature on my shelves than I do literature of any other period. There is less of 19th century literature and far less from the Renaissance. As time goes by only the strongest works survive. The rest is relegated to the specialists. Certainly there must have been far more writers of real talent writing in Italy at the same time as Dante, Boccaccio, and Cavalcanti... but who else is still read? (And even Cavalcanti is not a household name even among some of the most well-read.) When future generations select the literature of the 20th century that remains "essential" just how highly will Animal Farm rank on that list considering all the other possibilities?[/QUOTE]

As minor I am already ignoring all those who will be forgotten. Minor as George Bernard Shaw, H.G.Wells, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rousseau, Petronio are minors when compared to Joyce, Woolf, Dickinson, Poe, Voltaire or Horace.
I think it will survive, but are we prophets ?

[JBI]

Orwell is already falling into obscurity. He published more than 2 books you know, and how many people read them all? 4 of his 6 novels seem to already have gone the period piece walk, being only read by people studying Orwell, his 3 personal experience books also seem to be period pieces, and have disappeared with the period.

Like all social political criticism, much of his work is dependent on the period. Your opinion of animal farm seems to be making it something that it is not. Orwell's personal politics seem to contradict your thoughts on Animal farm, and you are just pushing aspects of it into a pseudo-universal when they are quite specific. It is similar to some readings of Sun Tzu, where the reader feels that each sentence is a metaphor in some way or another for how to live one's life. The reader will assign new meanings to the most specific of things simply because Sun Tzu was an old Chinese scholar, and therefore carries a sort of sage-like presence amongst readers. The book itself is a rather good piece of war and political philosophy, but it's economic and lifestyle tips are simply manufactured by the reader's memory. That's how I think your reading of Animal Farm is. You are taking your knowledge of history, and revolution, and projecting it onto the book in places that Orwell would not have even agreed with you. That reading then becomes a personal reading, and doesn't prove anything beyond that Animal Farm jogged some memories from your mind. Future readers will not have the same experiences, and therefore the work will say less to them.

Shaw, Wells, Rossetti, Rousseau, and Petronio are not all minor authors. Wells perhaps is, but Shaw most certainly is not (There is a Shaw Festival going on at Niagara falls right now to prove he is still widely preformed). Rossetti is remembered also for his paintings, which will carry him beyond a major poet of the Pre-Raphaelites to a major artist. Rousseau was never minor, and pretty much cooked up the French Revolution in many ways, and his novel Julie, Or the New Heloise is still an excellent read today. He was the first celebrity best-selling author of all time, to the point where books were rented out by the hour.

With that, I have to leave until 9:00 EST, but I'll continue this later if you are still up to it.

[Nightshade]

OK if we are saying that a classic is a work that is continued to e read not just by academics but the masses as well for at least a century after its conception then surely this would follow,

Can we call something a classic that tomorrow isn't regarded as a classic anymore?
, because when it comes down to it as we move further language evolves and it becomes harder to comprehend what was without training, which would mean that less people would pick up work to read simply because it appeals to them, which if you continue to follow this line of thought till its end boded dire for people Shakespeare, because although hes unlikely to be forgotten, the fact reminds at least 9 of 10 people who first come across Shakespeare do so as a result of formal education, which argues that he doesn't actually appeal to people until hes been rammed down their throats for a few years.

I am quite willing to accept that a classic is a typical example of a work of its kind, it would make sense I suppose although that means you also have classic Danielle Steels, and classic mills&boons/Harlequin romances things.

But I wonder if you want to find out about the social aspects of a time wouldn't a book with mass market appeal be more useful than an intellectual work?

As for Animal Farm I think that it can be read without the political historical background as an allegory of what happens when people try to improve things with violence, the corruption of ideals and all that.

[JCamilo]

Orwell is already falling into obscurity. He published more than 2 books you know, and how many people read them all? 4 of his 6 novels seem to already have gone the period piece walk, being only read by people studying Orwell, his 3 personal experience books also seem to be period pieces, and have disappeared with the period.

Err, Orwell journals are only published in Brazil for the first time in the last 5 years. Seems like his obscurity is basead in a very short sighted perception. One of the most popular programs today is Big Brother and the Matrix abused of Big Brotherism - The life of certains authors can be measured by the amount of "non reading" of his work despite how his popular his creations are. You are joking me, Melville is probally less read them Orwell and falling from non-reading periods to worshiping once or while. (Melville another great example of allegorist of specific events, and an immortal one). A Classic is not only a book that is read all the time, but one that once forgotten can come back.


Like all social political criticism, much of his work is dependent on the period.

Again? So is Victor Hugo or Voltaire and the Aeneid. They all really depends of the time and they are alive.


Your opinion of animal farm seems to be making it something that it is not.

Really? Either you point out what makes my opinion of Animal Farm to be what it is not or your generalizations are not building any argument.
Anyways, Virgil was once read a pre-cristian (In the georgicas they saw a prediction of jesus coming), Voltaire as democratic, etc. Misinterpretation is a fair game and a great reason for works living outside their time. And again, I have pointed that to you.


Orwell's personal politics seem to contradict your thoughts on Animal farm, and you are just pushing aspects of it into a pseudo-universal when they are quite specific.

Bah, As I pointed a book live outside the intentions of the author. Orwell Personal intentions have nothing to do with what kind use of the later generations do.
In fact I pointed to you how out of context Animal Farm is used, so either your understand that there is a difference between what I know Animal farm is and what I know what Animal farm perception is or your are running in circles and bitting your own tail. If one can make his own interpretation independant of the context, the historical context have no importance.


That's how I think your reading of Animal Farm is. You are taking your knowledge of history, and revolution, and projecting it onto the book in places that Orwell would not have even agreed with you. That reading then becomes a personal reading, and doesn't prove anything beyond that Animal Farm jogged some memories from your mind. Future readers will not have the same experiences, and therefore the work will say less to them.

I have no pointed a single personal interpretation of Animal farm. I have pointed others reading and there is where your argument fails - People misinteprete the Animal farm.


Shaw, Wells, Rossetti, Rousseau, and Petronio are not all minor authors. Wells perhaps is, but Shaw most certainly is not (There is a Shaw Festival going on at Niagara falls right now to prove he is still widely preformed).

Because a festival? Really ? How many socialists anarchists like Shaw are alive to interprete his works in the light of his rebelions? And please, Shaw is minor while compared to Joyce. Eugene O'Neil is minor. Rostand is minor. Agatha Christie is minor (bellow minor maybe, and isnt she the author of the long-running play of all time? )


Rossetti is remembered also for his paintings, which will carry him beyond a major poet of the Pre-Raphaelites to a major artist.

Of course, but I am talking about his work as poet.


Rousseau was never minor, and pretty much cooked up the French Revolution in many ways, and his novel Julie, Or the New Heloise is still an excellent read today. He was the first celebrity best-selling author of all time, to the point where books were rented out by the hour.

O_O Rousseau was the first celebrity best-selling author of all time? Dude, Rousseau was outshadowed by Voltaire, considerable more popular and dominat than him. And if we consider Rousseau as a bridge between Voltaire age and the romantic age he is overshadowed by Goethe, who he copied and as star, by Lord Byron. Close to them he is a minor writer and frankly, you are equating quality with popularity? Not you.
I think you are misunderstanding, Minor among majors, not between watever wrote Varney the vampire in the XIX century.


With that, I have to leave until 9:00 EST, but I'll continue this later if you are still up to it.

of course, sure :D

[The Atheist]

Interesting thread, which seems to have largely answered its own question.

To me, the separation of classics from everything else is the same as how we separate classic art from the mundane, classic cars from the everyday sedan and antiques from mass-produced furniture.

Simply, the lasting appeal makes something into a classic. If it stands the test of time, it becomes a classic, otherwise, it doesn't and will be forgotten.

Gulliver's Travels and Canterbury Tales will stand as clasics, they have already survived too long to be considered otherwise, yet, in what way is Canterbury Tales relevant to today? Not at all.

The main thrust of discussion seems to be whether Animal Farm will stand that test of time, and it seems that the ongoing discussion actually answers that question in the affirmative. Here we are, almost 70 years after publication of the book and the subject has dominated this thread.

That looks pretty much like a QED to me.

Sure, Orwell's lesser works are mostly overlooked, but then again, who reads Dickens nowadays? Are we going to re-classify Dickens as "just more books" because they go somewhat out of vogue? No. We will continue to enjoy and rediscover Dickens just as future generations will rediscover Animal Farm.

Books which are multi-generational can be safely added to the "classics" category. Animal Farm has already well and truly passed that test.

I see a lot of worrying about influence and derivative - I say, "so what?"

It seems to me that every author is guilty of being influenced by his or her forebears, which is exactly how the evolution of mankind has always worked. If the wheel had not been discovered already, why should it be necessary to invent a new one to use for the internal combustion engine? We all borrow from our experience - that's what it's for.

[Niamh]

as literature, it is all writen text, it is not art as suggested (so why would we use scietific literature, heh)...
and Classic was pretty much defined by JBI, nothing much to add, except we can also say, a Classic also can survive the lack of reading - returning is a power and proof of their qualities.

:nod: Literature is basicly anything that is written text, from a church pamplet, to the Annuls of Ireland to novels by Jane Austen or a book by Deepak Chopra.

[JBI]

Voltaire's Aeneid rooted in its time? I don't think Virgil lived in the time of the gods, and, according to classical texts which I think he must have read (perhaps even more texts than we have) the events of the Trojan War were in a different age than the regular Greek times. That is, Homeric Greek times, Virgil was how many years even after that? Virgil writes of the foundation, the same way one now could write about the foundation of the united states, he just didn't really follow history, and made it up as he went.

I did not say allegory is bad, which only a fool would say. I said Animal Farm is not for all ages, which is different. You went on to project that it speaks of revolution in general, and not specific events, and therefore has scope beyond its historical confines, I say you haven't really read into Orwell enough, he was quite the revolutionary himself.

I pointed out the Shaw Festival as a means of saying to you, not only are people still reading Shaw, but they are actually seeing him preformed. How many other playwrites can you say that about?

Voltaire bigger than Rousseau? Maybe, if you only count novels (Have you even read Julie?). In terms of thought Rousseau was far more important, and either way, in that time period, for novels Sterne outshown both of them. I don't know how many people will agree with you that Rousseau is smaller compared to Voltaire; to me he seems perhaps the most important figure of his time. His work seems to be the root of not only the revolution, but also the subsequent romantic movement. Everything in the past 200 years seems to be somewhat under his influence.

You seem midway through your argument to do an about-face and start changing your argument to agree with me, but saying that I disagree. I don't know what to say, other than, thank you.

[stlukesguild]

The life of certains authors can be measured by the amount of "non reading" of his work despite how his popular his creations are. You are joking me, Melville is probally less read them Orwell...

It's certainly a waste of time to continue to argue whether Orwell will stand the test of time or not. I've stated my opinion and given the reasons. I simply disagree... or suspect that Orwell's Animal Farm will ultimately be but a period piece. I do agree with your argument in pointing out that the amount of work not read has nothing to do with the lasting reputation of an author... even if only based largely upon a single novel (and a few short stories and poems) as it is in Melville. Melville remains a giant largely upon the basis of a single masterful novel.

As minor I am already ignoring all those who will be forgotten. Minor as George Bernard Shaw, H.G.Wells, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rousseau, Petronio are minors when compared to Joyce, Woolf, Dickinson, Poe, Voltaire or Horace. I think it will survive, but are we prophets ?

The description of a given writer as "minor" is certainly relative to whom he or she is compared. Shaw, Wells, and Rossetti may certainly be "minor" in comparison with Joyce, Voltaire, Dickinson, Woolf, and Horace (although certainly not Poe)... but that is arguable. Rousseau, on the other hand, is "minor" in no sense of the word. He was overshadowed by Volatire? "Was" is the key word. How many works of Voltaire's beyond Candide continue to be read outside of the French-speaking world? Rousseau's impact upon history, philosophy, and literature was immense. His influence upon Romanticism unquestionable. Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, Blake, even Goethe were undoubtedly and even self-admittedly influenced by Rousseau. His impact upon educational theory as expounded in Emile carried over to Dewey and even to current progressive educational theory. His novel Julie is one of the great and most successful epistolary novels, while his Confessions essentially established the modern autobiography as a genre and remains among the most read and most influential books of the period. I don't recall when I have ever scanned a shelf in the philosophy sections in any good book store and not come across the Confessions, The Social Contract, and even Emile. Yes, Goethe may dwarf Rousseau... but who, during that period, did he not dwarf? He dwarfed Wordsworth and even Blake... neither of whom can be considered "minor". With the passage of time you may be right about Rossetti (Much as I love his work, he's not Tennyson, Browning, or Baudelaire) or Shaw... but I would predict that Orwell will be even more forgotten when his work has reached the same age as theirs.

[JCamilo]

Voltaire's Aeneid rooted in its time? I don't think Virgil lived in the time of the gods, and, according to classical texts which I think he must have read (perhaps even more texts than we have) the events of the Trojan War were in a different age than the regular Greek times.That is, Homeric Greek times, Virgil was how many years even after that? Virgil writes of the foundation, the same way one now could write about the foundation of the united states, he just didn't really follow history, and made it up as he went.

Ah, good god, I do not think Orwell also lived during the time animals talked. Aesop was the last to see such thing... Despite the Homeric theme, The Aeneid can be only understand, fully understand, if you know it is a political propaganda work, if you know that was the period of Augusto re-building the Empire and despite talking about a time before time, Virgil is talking about his age.
I do not believe you are taking the poetical setting as the literal setting in this the argument.



I did not say allegory is bad, which only a fool would say. I said Animal Farm is not for all ages, which is different. You went on to project that it speaks of revolution in general, and not specific events, and therefore has scope beyond its historical confines, I say you haven't really read into Orwell enough, he was quite the revolutionary himself.

The problem is when you give the reasons you list only the reasons that make an allegory an allegory (for example, the roots in specific historical events), I countered it listing several works and allegories who are able to stand out in the text of time and pointed that the reason can only be the quality of the work or not.
I also pointed that very few people read books knowing fully the background of the author. Several works survived despite and mostly because of misinterpretation - I pointed out even part of Animal farm that is already popular and used out of the context. I also pointed that Animal Farm can (I find funny because when I was young all revolutions that build moderm age are placed in a bag named "Burgoise Revolutions", using the similarities - which appear in Animal Farm because they appear in the soviet Revolution - yet you insist there is nothing universal in the story of revolution. Meh, the name Napoleon should be clue enough that Orwell was not with the French Revolution out of his mind) be used for several other revolutions - Anyone familiar with the Cuban revolution can easily tie Napoleon with Castro, Snowball with Che Guevara and there goes.


I pointed out the Shaw Festival as a means of saying to you, not only are people still reading Shaw, but they are actually seeing him preformed. How many other playwrites can you say that about?

Shaw is a great name, but Agatha Christie is still performed, no? That was no measurement of greatness - but Shaw is a great point, What people know about Shaw radicalism when reading him, for real?


Voltaire bigger than Rousseau? Maybe, if you only count novels (Have you even read Julie?). In terms of thought Rousseau was far more important, and either way, in that time period, for novels Sterne outshown both of them.

Considering Voltaire for novels is a bit outstreching. Voltaire during his life was the most popular and leader of french philosphers without having even build a system of philosophy. Even in Rousseau area, which was the most popular care, social vision, Voltaire actions outstanded Rousseau, who was important on his own, of course. Candide is a considerable more lasting, important and relevant text that all fictions Rousseau wrote and even Sterne. Even Rousseau who suffered a crazy envy for Voltaire would tell him how big the thin man was.


I don't know how many people will agree with you that Rousseau is smaller compared to Voltaire; to me he seems perhaps the most important figure of his time. His work seems to be the root of not only the revolution, but also the subsequent romantic movement. Everything in the past 200 years seems to be somewhat under his influence.

Rousseau? I would rather List Goethe before him, even the "education" novels are Goethe's idea and not Rousseau. Of course Rousseau is important in the area of pedagogy, education, equality but so is Voltaire - his popularity leads him, an aristocratic that had no desire to share power with the people - to be worshiped by the masses and the quality of his texts is considerable superior to Rousseau.


You seem midway through your argument to do an about-face and start changing your argument to agree with me, but saying that I disagree. I don't know what to say, other than, thank you.

funny, I was considering that to you. Even those lines about you I said before... ahem...

[JCamilo]

The life of certains authors can be measured by the amount of "non reading" of his work despite how his popular his creations are. You are joking me, Melville is probally less read them Orwell...

It's certainly a waste of time to continue to argue whether Orwell will stand the test of time or not. I've stated my opinion and given the reasons. I simply disagree... or suspect that Orwell's Animal Farm will ultimately be but a period piece. I do agree with your argument in pointing out that the amount of work not read has nothing to do with the lasting reputation of an author... even if only based largely upon a single novel (and a few short stories and poems) as it is in Melville. Melville remains a giant largely upon the basis of a single masterful novel.

More than agreed, may argument was not even really if Animal Farm would resist or not, but how just because a book have roots in one period, is an allegory, it cann't survive as it was implied earlier.
Side noted, Melville could survive even without the whale, Benito Cereno and Billy Budd alone could easily put him alongside Poe or Henry James.



As minor I am already ignoring all those who will be forgotten. Minor as George Bernard Shaw, H.G.Wells, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rousseau, Petronio are minors when compared to Joyce, Woolf, Dickinson, Poe, Voltaire or Horace. I think it will survive, but are we prophets ?

The description of a given writer as "minor" is certainly relative to whom he or she is compared. Shaw, Wells, and Rossetti may certainly be "minor" in comparison with Joyce, Voltaire, Dickinson, Woolf, and Horace (although certainly not Poe)... but that is arguable. Rousseau, on the other hand, is "minor" in no sense of the word. He was overshadowed by Volatire? "Was" is the key word. How many works of Voltaire's beyond Candide continue to be read outside of the French-speaking world?

Yes, That is what I meant, Orwell minor compared to other great names. Not minor in the Dan Brown sense.
One work that is more read than any work of Rousseau would be enough, but Zadig, Micromegas, are all read beyond french world (I am not french). Even philosophical texts of Voltaire are still read (I am not french neither speak it) but I am the first to say Democracy is considerable important and Rousseau is behind it - but we are talking about writers, fictional stuff no?
Voltaire is behind the roots of Science Fiction and his irony have left hand in every classicist after him - Machado de Assis, Carlyle, Borges, Karen Blixen, Eça de Queiroz even Flaubert. There is no reason to believe the lasting fame of Rousseau made up for the time they are alive and now they are even.



Rousseau's impact upon history, philosophy, and literature was immense. His influence upon Romanticism unquestionable. Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, Blake, even Goethe were undoubtedly and even self-admittedly influenced by Rousseau. His impact upon educational theory as expounded in Emile carried over to Dewey and even to current progressive educational theory. His novel Julie is one of the great and most successful epistolary novels, while his Confessions essentially established the modern autobiography as a genre and remains among the most read and most influential books of the period. I don't recall when I have ever scanned a shelf in the philosophy sections in any good book store and not come across the Confessions, The Social Contract, and even Emile. Yes, Goethe may dwarf Rousseau... but who, during that period, did he not dwarf? He dwarfed Wordsworth and even Blake... neither of whom can be considered "minor".

Never denied Rousseau importance. Anyways, the Voltaire vs. Rousseau lives beyond time as it seems and goes to pointless - They are all minor close to Goethe - and as you said, Minor is relative to someone else, so why you are now saying Blake and Wordsworth are not minor when compared to Goethe?


With the passage of time you may be right about Rossetti (Much as I love his work, he's not Tennyson, Browning, or Baudelaire) or Shaw... but I would predict that Orwell will be even more forgotten when his work has reached the same age as theirs.

With Notable exceptions, a great writer manages to left his work remembered just by handful or works, so it will be with those, but are you sure? Orwell is already more remembered than all those but Baudelaire. The Big Brother already moved to another step with the high technology, it is a figure that seems to be destined to have the immortal impact of other symbolic figures that live beyond their works. Shaw, Tennyson, Browning and Rossetti are barelly read outside intelectual circles (mostly the 3 poets) despite the great quality of their work. In 100 years poetry may raise again and take prose place as main reading and their text may return with power but it is all a bit prophecy that we are not going to live and see.

[The Atheist]

Subjectivity and appeals to authority.

It's clear that nobody has yet defined "classic".

What I've seen so far are subjective opinions on what the word means. Is it a term describing books revered by an elite set of academia? Is it books over a certain age which survive? Is it popular choice? (Please, not the last...)

A second-hand bookshop I go to has a "classics" section where I was delighted to find Dennis Wheatley rubbing shoulders with Orwell, Joyce and Shaw.

One man's classic is another man's toilet paper.

In art, there's a easy standby - price. The market ultimately decides what is and isn't worth preserving. With books, we can only go by popularity and longevity before devolving into the instrinsic "worth" of the story itself - an impossible task.

I've seen some books noted that are very highly regarded in certain circles which I wouldn't let my dog sleep on, but the fact that I think they're rubbish is of no relevance whatsoever.

Let's try this tack:

The whole point of books is getting people to read them.

If "classics" are defined as a set of books which are almost universally ignored - then the world of literature is making an elitist statement dismissive of what books actually mean. Seriously, guys, who reads Voltaire outside of arts courses? Who reads Shaw - other than those who grew up with him during school and university?

In art, Monet, Raphael, van Gogh and Salvador Dali are almost universally admired, as are Beethoven, Mozart and John Lennon in music.

Classics are read, not selected.

[JCamilo]

Seriosly, the discussion we are having here have not much to do with the question because the majority of people here already answered what is a classic. It is not that hard to define what is, it is hard however to agree which moderm books are classics, a very different question.

Classics are not read. It is not the same of popular. They are selected, not by a bunch of intelectuals, but by years and societies. And yes, CLassic is a matter of elitism, after all those are the best books of all time, when you grant such title, you are elitist, but not all elitism is a form of oppression and you can not make democratic option from everything.

[kelby_lake]

Perhaps for 'modern classics' the best term is 'cult', which acknowledges the fact that they are widely read, leaving obscurer things a more snobbish recognition :)