Cult Classics

[Dark Muse]

I generally tend to enjoy "Cult Classics" because they are, by their very definition books that tend to tread off the beaten path as it were. They generally tend to be quite bazaar or experimental, or deal with controversial subjects, counter-cultures, or just offer a unique, new and creative perspective upon society, reality, life, etc. and of course by their very nature they tend to be the sort of books that do generate very strong Love it or Hate it type of feelings. They are an acquired taste.

While of course it is a very loose term, and there can be disagreements between individuals about what works they think do or do not constitute the title of "Cult Classic" I am curious to see, which books do you consider to fall under the Cult Classic label, and or which Cult Classic books do you find the most enjoyable, intriguing, or worthwhile.

[Manchegan]

I don't think the term can really apply to books, and if it can, it must be relatively new books. For any Classics to survive, they need a fairly general appeal. Not to say that everyone loves them, but enough people must love the book to keep the work alive.

Books are the least approachable art form. You must take a more active role to get anything out of them and that seldom encourages rapid rereading from obsessed fans.

You could count trashy trend novels like Twilight and Harry Potter, but to put them in a class labelled "classic" doesn't seem right. It's too reverred a word in the world of books.

There are cult classic movies that used to be books (clock work orange, fear and loathing in las vegas, maybe fight club). But it's the movie with the cult appeal. It can be watched with minimal effort and enjoyed with friends in way that books simply cannot.

[prendrelemick]

Interesting question.

Does "On the Road" qualify, it was alternative when written, or Catcher in the Rye? What about Joyce? He has a cult following, people who retrace Bloom's steps around Dublin on Bloomsday. Paul Coelho has a culty following, and his books are just surreal enough to attact such a designation, but are they Classics?

Another aspect of a Cult Classic is that it mustn't become too mainstream. For example, Lord of the Rings in the 60s and 70s had a cult following, now i think it has lost that status and become "popular".

I'll stop now and focus my thoughts a bit.:D

[My name is red]

haven't read but heard catch 22 is a cult.I must admit I'm impressed by the label:)I'll read it in the soonest time

[JCamilo]

By your definition, a cult classic can be any classic, so it is unecessary to use the term. you see, you helped to bring Paulo Coelho in a classic discussion (and how is it cult? It is a popular stuff, cult is usually about selected group of fans only)...

[stlukesguild]

I don't think the term can really apply to books, and if it can, it must be relatively new books. For any Classics to survive, they need a fairly general appeal.

I wouldn't say that. I don't really think Finnegan's Wake or The Fairie Queene have a real general appeal. I think a cult classic would be something that has survived and maintained a small but somewhat obsessed following... in spite of not having achieved great recognition from the larger public or from academia and the followers of classic literature. Among cult classics I would include:

George Bataille- The Story of the Eye
Lauteamont- Maldoror
Mervyn Peake- The Gormenghast books
Yevgeny Zamyatin- We
Thomas Chatterton- poetry
Thomas Lovell Beddoes- Love's Jest Book
Huysmans- A Rebours (Against Nature)
Douglas Adams- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Hunter S. Thompson- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
almost anything by Philip K. Dick

I would also consider the following books which over an extended period of time have maintained an obsessive... almost rabid following beyond any aesthetic merit of the work itself:

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry- The Little Prince
Orwell- Animal Farm and 1984
Sylvia Plath- The Bell Jar
Aldous Huxley- Brave New World
Anthony Burgess- Clockwork Orange
Hermann Hesse- Steppenwolf, Sidhartha
Frank Herbert- Dune
Ayn Rand- anything
J.R.R. Tolkein- Lord of the Rings
James Hilton- Lost Horizon
L. Ron Hubbard- (see Ayn Rand)

[Dark Muse]

I don't think the term can really apply to books, and if it can, it must be relatively new books. For any Classics to survive, they need a fairly general appeal. Not to say that everyone loves them, but enough people must love the book to keep the work alive.

Books are the least approachable art form. You must take a more active role to get anything out of them and that seldom encourages rapid rereading from obsessed fans.

You could count trashy trend novels like Twilight and Harry Potter, but to put them in a class labelled "classic" doesn't seem right. It's too reverred a word in the world of books.

There are cult classic movies that used to be books (clock work orange, fear and loathing in las vegas, maybe fight club). But it's the movie with the cult appeal. It can be watched with minimal effort and enjoyed with friends in way that books simply cannot.



I at first was unsure if books could be fitted into the "Cult Classic" but I think there are some books which could qualify as such, Anne Rice for example I think can be considered as Cult Classic, as she does have a very specific and cult like following. Also Ayn Rand can be considered cult classic, for she is not of the mainstream, but she does have a small dedicated fan base.

I was looking it up online and found some listings of books that are considered Cult Classics.

These are the Top Ten Cult Classics Books according to The Times

The New York Trilogy by Paul Auster

Cocaine Nights by J. G. Ballard

Naked Lunch by William Burroughs

On the Road by Jack Kerouac

Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerney

The Dice Man by Luke Rhinehart

Valley of the Dolls by Jacqueline Susann

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson

Generation X by Douglas Coupland

A Million Little Pieces by James Frey (originally published as non-fiction; the author was later revealed to have fabricated chunks of the text)

[Manchegan]

you all make some interesting points. I may have to recant my statement. I just think the term is heavily loaded with connotations that relate to the movie experience and that don't translate to paper. But I suppose the general idea of a cult classic can apply...

[JBI]

I think Trainspotting by this point can be called a cult classic, as can Fight Club, and Sylvia Plath (although recently I have warmed a little bit to a few poems, nothing warrants the sort of attention caused by her suicide).


But who knows - I think the term works better in Cinema and for genre literature (I would, for instance, call Robbert E. Howard's Conan works as cult classics, and supposedly the first film has a somewhat cult following) but it's hard to generally play with this, as it would seem the age requirement for a cult classic is a lot shorter than for a true classic (which is at least a couple of generations).


But who can tell; Lyrical Ballads, for instance, was a cult-classic before it became one of the most significant anthologies of English poetry (it had a minor cult following in certain neighbourhoods) - but who can tell - can we call Dan Brown a cult-author, as there are people who follow him as if he was a cult leader (I believe there is a website called "The Cult of Dan Brown" or something)? In cinema it is far easier to distinguish.

[Dark Muse]

I was thinking about Fight Club, I myself haven't read it, but it seems to me it could fit into a Cult Classic, Sylvia Plath also does seem like a good choice. At first I would not have thought it, but it is true she does have a very specific fan base outside of the mainstream. Her suicide did create a sort of cult like following around her.

[JCamilo]

Sylvia is not that bad, one or two of her poems deserve attention I think...
Anyways, Poe is a cult. He have real followerd, the poe toast, etc. Borges is a cult. Being a clacissist is a cult, how many would not be if devoted to Cynics texts?
Eventually, everything that lose his popularity because is old, became a cult, so classics are almost all like this.

[JBI]

Sylvia is not that bad, one or two of her poems deserve attention I think...
Anyways, Poe is a cult. He have real followerd, the poe toast, etc. Borges is a cult. Being a clacissist is a cult, how many would not be if devoted to Cynics texts?
Eventually, everything that lose his popularity because is old, became a cult, so classics are almost all like this.

You confuse religious classics with cult classics - the religious classics, like Shakespeare and whatnot are codified into a orderly system with a history, whereas cult classics are far more staccato.

You get Poe as a cult author, but there is also Poe as a Religious author - likewise Dickens in his time was a cult author, but has since morphed into a religious author - the difference is really in the structuring of why they are worshiped, rather than by how many.

[JCamilo]

But a cult is exactly a movie whorshiped by few, but in a special way. Shakespeare today is a cult by a few. Classics overall are like this, because those who are popular in their lifetimes like Shakespeare, had a specialization of their followers.
Borges is cult, his real fans are easily reckonized. There is more, Chesterton, Stevenson or Joyce.
Yourself, with the Leopoardi. How many people do really repeat Dom Quixote lines by memory or compare themselves with him? Or Gargantua and Pantagruel? (I do not believe that in any example I gave, Borges, Poe or Cynics I have used the appeal to their popularity. Poe, the most popular of them, is obviously a cult, with their camp followers, his death, the misery of his life, etc who are matter of worship beyond his texts as you reckonized his dual nature. But Borges? Cynics philosophers? What do they have as popularity ? In this very forum, how many have read the main works of Borges? Myself and Stlukes? And Cynic texts? Mortal maybe? How come I was talking by the quantidy of followers rather than the kind of follower when mentioning those examples?)
The obvious things is that all classics are cult, worshiped (I do not understand how you are going to argue the that something cultued is opposed to something reggarded with religousity) by a few no matter how they are received by the publich when released. They are not mainstream or anything similar. That is exactly what is a classic. The cult classic idea is an oxymorom.

[sixsmith]

Surely a few of Ballard's early outings are cult classics.

[mortalterror]

Lauteamont- Maldoror
What little I've read was fantastic. I am definitely finishing that someday.

Thomas Lovell Beddoes- Love's Jest Book
I think you mean Death's Jest Book. I read the first scene a few days ago and was blown away.

Huysmans- A Rebours (Against Nature)
Really enjoyed the beginning, but by the middle it had gotten repetitious, and I didn't like the ending.

Douglas Adams- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Another interesting book I swore I'd come back to. Not really my type of humor but amusing none the less.

Hunter S. Thompson- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
One of my favorite books.

almost anything by Philip K. Dick
Start with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?


I would also consider the following books which over an extended period of time have maintained an obsessive... almost rabid following beyond any aesthetic merit of the work itself:

Orwell- Animal Farm and 1984
Sylvia Plath- The Bell Jar
Some of my favorites from high school. I really think that you underestimate Orwell and Kerouac to the extent that you overestimate the talents of guys like Borges.

Hermann Hesse- Steppenwolf, Sidhartha
Frank Herbert- Dune
Two more of my favorite books from high school. Have you considered that perhaps you are just not at the right age to appreciate these novels?

[stlukesguild]

Mortal... yes, I meant Death's Jest Book... but seeing all art is about sex or death... eros or mort... I went with the more attractive of the two.:lol:

I don't think Orwell was a bad writer... but I find it comic that 1984 and Animal Farm continually make the lists of the "greatest novels" etc... Hell, even here Orwell is ranked at number 21. above T.S. Eliot, Elliot, Ibsen
Conrad, Beckett, Milton!!?, Goethe!!?, Keats, Poe, Hesse, Twain, Flaubert
Ovid!!, Racine, Whitman!!, Moliere!! Chaucer (WTF!!!?),Yeats, Blake (Acck!!:brickwall), Euripides, Swift... etc... And then we have the LitNet "Top 100 Books" with 1984 ranked at no. 2!!! Really? The second greatest book ever written? Really???

By the way... I only overestimate Borges to the extent you overestimate Ovid and Hemingway (which is to say, not in the least:D).

As for Hesse... I actually quite like him. Indeed... I pretty much own everything that the guy wrote that exists in English translation. What I am thinking, however, in suggesting Sidhartha and Steppenwolf especially as "cult classics" is of the sort of counter-culture/hippie embrace of these works by Hesse (never the Glass Bead game... not Hesse's more difficult compatriot, Thomas Mann.)

[mortalterror]

I don't think Orwell was a bad writer... but I find it comic that 1984 and Animal Farm continually make the lists of the "greatest novels" etc... Hell, even here Orwell is ranked at number 21. above T.S. Eliot, Elliot, Ibsen, Conrad, Beckett, Milton!!?, Goethe!!?, Keats, Poe, Hesse, Twain, Flaubert, Ovid!!, Racine, Whitman!!, Moliere!! Chaucer (WTF!!!?),Yeats, Blake (Acck!!:brickwall), Euripides, Swift... etc... And then we have the LitNet "Top 100 Books" with 1984 ranked at no. 2!!! Really? The second greatest book ever written? Really???
It probably has something to do with the relative age of the average litnetters who submitted their votes. Personally, I can't stand Dostoyevski, but if people want to praise him higher than Shakespeare that's fine with me. I've grown used to it.

By the way... I only overestimate Borges to the extent you overestimate Ovid and Hemingway (which is to say, not in the least:D).
Indeed, it's a mystery to me why anyone would rate Faulkner above Hemingway or Virgil above Ovid. For that matter, where's the love for Racine and Aeschylus? And why hasn't Danton's Death made bigger ripples or the works of Thomas Love Peacock? I just have to chalk it up to personal taste on my part.

As for Hesse... I actually quite like him. Indeed... I pretty much own everything that the guy wrote that exists in English translation. What I am thinking, however, in suggesting Sidhartha and Steppenwolf especially as "cult classics" is of the sort of counter-culture/hippie embrace of these works by Hesse (never the Glass Bead game... not Hesse's more difficult compatriot, Thomas Mann.)
You may have something there. I've never been that big a fan of Mann. Death in Venice and Tonio Kroger did less for me than others, although Hemingway thought very highly of Buddenbrooks; so I've long meant to read that. Steppenwolf is something else. If you read it at the right time it can have quite an effect on you, almost as much as other formative books such as Walden. Reading it in high school, when I was first becoming aware of my internal tug of war and inconsistencies of character was quite a revelation.

[JBI]

Orwell is a cult author - I find his Animal Farm dated, and his 1984, though somewhat interesting, not the best piece of literature - he did write occasional good essays (some very good), but in all honesty, there are far better political novels - his book has become a reason to not understand - big brother has become an excuse for not looking at the nuance of issues - the history, the fine print - it's become a joke - a scare tactic. The text intended to create the ultimate enemy to freedom within its diegesis, and in doing so, has been used against itself - it very much is a cult text, but is never a literary text, because in other aspects, it is lacking - it survives because of its usefulness as political literature, in conditioning the "anti-big-brother".

[JCamilo]

If Animal Farm is dated, so is Dante's Comedy. The historical background that both writers lived is gone but the overall universal meaning is far from dated. It is so simple - as fables are meant to be - that the moral of history will always be appealing and appliable. United States ignore some United Nations and attack a country after some weapons that do not exist and nothing happens to him? Some animals are...

As 1984, you can not blame society banalization to 1984. That is like some people blaming Wagner for german nazism because at some point his nationalism was used by them or Conrad for colonialism in Heart of Darkness. If 1984 will survive to his pop status and spawn new interpretations is something yet to be seem, but it is certainly interesting to give more credit to an author who produced some of most popular metaphros of XX century.

[JBI]

What is the justification for Animal Farm as classic? where is the universal meaning, the beauty of language? The silly ending, where the pigs are even worse than their predecessors? Is that really such a timeless story? The text is rooted only in contemporary politics - as an allegory, it lacks transcending qualities - it is a mere historical consideration - a contemporary criticism of a "corrupt" system, nothing more.

Animal Farm is just one of those texts everyone can go without reading, but pretend to read, and shout out a few mediocre quotes to seem intelligent - the actual value as literature though, by my estimate is minimal - like I said before, I feel it fails to transcend the allegory.

[sixsmith]

What is the justification for Animal Farm as classic? where is the universal meaning, the beauty of language? The silly ending, where the pigs are even worse than their predecessors? Is that really such a timeless story? The text is rooted only in contemporary politics - as an allegory, it lacks transcending qualities - it is a mere historical consideration - a contemporary criticism of a "corrupt" system, nothing more.

Animal Farm is just one of those texts everyone can go without reading, but pretend to read, and shout out a few mediocre quotes to seem intelligent - the actual value as literature though, by my estimate is minimal - like I said before, I feel it fails to transcend the allegory.

I tend to agree with you here JBI, at least with respect to its allegorical shortcomings. I have a more general issue with allegorical fiction as too often the meaning it seeks to impart does not overcome its conceit. I think James Wood said that allegory cant just be a map, it has to be a landscape too. For mine, 1984 does not relay enough for it to be a landscape. A novelist like Kafka on the other hand, uses allegory to create a very complex and moving landscape.

[JCamilo]

What is the justification for Animal Farm as classic? where is the universal meaning, the beauty of language? The silly ending, where the pigs are even worse than their predecessors? Is that really such a timeless story? The text is rooted only in contemporary politics - as an allegory, it lacks transcending qualities - it is a mere historical consideration - a contemporary criticism of a "corrupt" system, nothing more.

Animal Farm is just one of those texts everyone can go without reading, but pretend to read, and shout out a few mediocre quotes to seem intelligent - the actual value as literature though, by my estimate is minimal - like I said before, I feel it fails to transcend the allegory.


JBI, trying to justify he cannonical status is basically arguing about why it is not in the list. It is a mistake. So I wont bother with the status, but fact is, this book is what, 60 years old and still alive. So far the question is why this book remains while other authors from that is fading. Something is there, not some accident: enough generations and cultures have read this book to simplify it to the historical message. Just claiming there is nothing there, does not make it true.
As far I am concerned you are doing a basical mistake: fables do not concern themselves with the beauty of language. How many of the fabulists were noted for this? Andersen? La Fointaine (Which basically only worked with the language, since the stories are not original at all)? Anyone really considers Aesop for the beauty of language? And how many writers are more enduring than him? The trick of a fable, the rule, is being simple, direct, using popular ideas and frankly, a considerable ammount of short stories rules we have today was born with Aesop economic stories. So, maybe the reason why Animal Farm endures is because there is no other fable in the XX as appealing. Inside its genre there is few more effective.
It is like asking why Red Hidding Hood (any version, because even if Perrault had a more stylized language than the Grimms, both are equally present in our culture) is more widely read and remembered than, lets say, François Villon. One does not eat the other, but it works perfectly.
As being rooted on contemporary politics, this is non sense. It is not more rooted on contemporary politics than Les Miserables or Aeneid. It does not reffer only to russian revolution, there is a pig named Napoleon to make reference to the french revolution as well. And everytime a political regim formed by social movements fail to uphold the ideals and became a political reality, removing the social groups from power and organizing a political group to control it all, Animal Farm will be remembered. Russia, France, Brazil, Cuba, Iran, whenever. I bet the majority that read it only discovers the russian analogies after the reading.
As Animal Farm being one of texts you can go without reading - which text you need to read to live? There is a Bloom list of what we should read to be considered, I dunno, place here which status you want. And people quoting Animal Farm to look inteligent? Seriously? They do not such thing over here, because here most fables are reggarded as children stories, Animal Farm when a school uses it, is given to 11-13 years old... Around here they can grab some Voltaire, Oscar Wilde, Machado de Assis maybe some Einstein or vague oriental sayings, but Animal Farm? Well, maybe we can say all those writers are stuff people say to look smarter too... We could live without reading all of them right?

[mal4mac]

I agree with JBI (and Harold Bloom!) about Orwell. I read his "complete novels" a year ago and it was not an enjoyable experience. Bloom has a section in "Novelists and Novels" which backs what JBI is saying.

[JCamilo]

JBloomI ?:D

[sixsmith]

I agree with JBI (and Harold Bloom!) about Orwell. I read his "complete novels" a year ago and it was not an enjoyable experience. Bloom has a section in "Novelists and Novels" which backs what JBI is saying.

Something about its genre being established by political and social events?

[LuggageFan]

What is the justification for Animal Farm as classic? where is the universal meaning, the beauty of language? The silly ending, where the pigs are even worse than their predecessors? Is that really such a timeless story? The text is rooted only in contemporary politics - as an allegory, it lacks transcending qualities - it is a mere historical consideration - a contemporary criticism of a "corrupt" system, nothing more.

Animal Farm is just one of those texts everyone can go without reading, but pretend to read, and shout out a few mediocre quotes to seem intelligent - the actual value as literature though, by my estimate is minimal - like I said before, I feel it fails to transcend the allegory.

It's short, written at a level that youngsters can understand, and the story imparts well a number of important civic values. Sort of like Aesop's Fable or Grimm's Fairy Tales. It may not be your taste, but substitute a Confederacy of Dunces or Ulysses in Animal Farm's place, and they will remain books which stay unread and thus, useless. Animal Farm, on the other hand, gets read.

Strange But True Postscript: I did NOT read JCamilo's post which sounds very much like mine until AFTER I had posted this. Wow!

[OrphanPip]

I would think a cult book would be something that has a dedicated by niche following.

Leslie Feinberg's Stone Butch Blues, now becoming a classic of transgender literature being taught in universities, was first a highly obscure book published by an independent press in San Francisco and circulated predominantly on university campuses, it somehow developed enough of a cult following to warrant reprinting.

[Seasider]

To StLukesGuild's candidates I would add

De Profundis by Oscar Wilde
A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole
City of Night by John Rechy
A Dance to the Music of Time by Anthony Powell

Cult classics, if indeed they exist, and if they have any semantic relationship to the sociological definition of a cult, should be defined not by their literary qualities but by the fanaticism and strangeness of their devotees.
Simple likes and dislikes of most books or authors are a matter of taste, of generation, of culture etc.I classify something as a cult classic when I decide that its fans are not just different from me but barking mad:smile5:

[Seasider]

What is the Universal Meaning of Animal Farm? The same as Lord Acton identified years before Orwell and which has been expressed or hinted at in countless books and plays, including works by Shakespeare and Chaucer.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

I read today an allegation that President Putin has billions stashed in some offshore tax haven. In the same paper I read that the majority of the farms originally owned by White Rhodesians and confiscated in the honourable name of land redistribution are now in the ownership of less than 400 families in Zimbabwe. Mostly relatives and cronies of President Mugabe.These are by no means isolated cases as any one with any interest in global politics will have noticed.

Shame after all the warnings we've had... we still don't see it coming.

[Emil Miller]

What is the Universal Meaning of Animal Farm? The same as Lord Acton identified years before Orwell and which has been expressed or hinted at in countless books and plays, including works by Shakespeare and Chaucer.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

I read today a suggestion that President Putin has billions stashed in some offshore tax haven. In the same paper I read that the majority of the farms originally owned by White Rhodesians and confiscated in the name of land redistribution are now in the ownership of less than 400 families in Zimbabwe. Mostly relatives and cronies of President Mugabe.These are by no means isolated cases as any one with any interest in global politics will have noticed.

Shame after all the warnings we've had... we still don't see it coming.

Well, in the case of Rhodesia, any sensible person would have seen it coming a mile off but, as usual, self-righteous idiocy ensured that it would happen.

[ceelo]

Hmm, was/is A Clockwork Orange, considered a cult classic?

[Alexander III]

Well Tolstoy inspired a cult forming about him, they were called the tolstoyans, does not get more cultish and classic than that.

[oshima]

The best example that I can think of is the fictional work of the philosopher/theologian Mircea Eliade, specifically the Forbidden Forest and Youth Without Youth. They're quite abstract and unpredictable.