What makes a Classic

[acrafty1]

Hi All,

Just wondered what, in your opinion makes a classic novel/poem and who decides when it has become a classic?

Examples would be great too :o)

[Sancho Panza]

My definition of what it takes for a book to become a true classic is a book that people are still raving about at least a decade or two after it was first published. My favourite example of such a book (also my favourite book of all time) is that of Don Quixote which people are still reading and enjoying 400 years after its publication!

Many books and authors come and go over the centuries and only a very few are remembered beyond their own time periods. Those that are are those who redefined their respective genres and produced something totally different, with a story that resonates whichever time you are reading it in.

Examples of more modern authors whose works are already considered classics include Robert Heinlein, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Paul Auster (whose New York Trilogy is probably my second favourite book. I imagine that centuries down the line - if the world still exists - people will still be enjoying the works of these great authors

Of course, the beautiful thing about literature is that there is no objective standard of greatness. Everybody has their own tastes and ideas about which books should be considered classics and that is why forums like this exist.

Another way that some books have become classics is through controversy. Ulysses for example was not received well by certain authorities and that just made people more adament to get their hands on a copy. On the subject of Ulysses, I have tried to get through it umpteen times and have consistently failed, so I for one am not sure if I personally would rank it as a classic.

[cafolini]

My definition of what it takes for a book to become a true classic is a book that people are still raving about at least a decade or two after it was first published. My favourite example of such a book (also my favourite book of all time) is that of Don Quixote which people are still reading and enjoying 400 years after its publication!

Many books and authors come and go over the centuries and only a very few are remembered beyond their own time periods. Those that are are those who redefined their respective genres and produced something totally different, with a story that resonates whichever time you are reading it in.

Examples of more modern authors whose works are already considered classics include Robert Heinlein, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Paul Auster (whose New York Trilogy is probably my second favourite book. I imagine that centuries down the line - if the world still exists - people will still be enjoying the works of these great authors

Of course, the beautiful thing about literature is that there is no objective standard of greatness. Everybody has their own tastes and ideas about which books should be considered classics and that is why forums like this exist.

Another way that some books have become classics is through controversy. Ulysses for example was not received well by certain authorities and that just made people more adament to get their hands on a copy. On the subject of Ulysses, I have tried to get through it umpteen times and have consistently failed, so I for one am not sure if I personally would rank it as a classic.

What makes a classic is what the people want and the lack of multiplicity that will grow and eventually send it to oblivion.

[carolinehelston]

what will still be read after 100 years despite not being in fashion. Something that chronicles a universal feeling, thought or events that repeat themselves.

Those popular books you see today, the stuff that make lots of money but the critics hate, will not last the decades. Your classic book may not make so much money now but over the years it will be remembered. I mean, look at Thackeray's Vanity Fair, which is still well-known now. There are some that say any old book is a classic but this is not necessarily true. If it was many of the works of popular Victorian writers (Bulwer-Lytton) would make the top reading-list of those who generally enjoy classics.

you may have noticed some of the good Victorian novelists who discussed current issues do not make the list, despite being intellectuals and realists themselves. It is because 150 years later, the issues do not always hold true. But what holds greater influence is how they portray the characters. A clever interesting book, which does not have character depth or a realistic community is unlikely to survive the decades. But a book with no exciting plot, or even social issues may thrive because the characters are perfectly real, and the feelings of that era can still be understood now. Jane Austen's books were not intellectual and even her treatment of governess Jane Fairfax is superficial and unsympathetic. Yet Emma remains a classic because it accurately portrays what people think and feel, though superficial. She was reflecting what people thought of governesses then. Charlotte Bronte rightly said that Austen lacked passion and feeling in her writing, but what stood out was the sheer realism of the characters in a community. The gossip you see in Austen does not appear so much in other classics, it is irrelevant to the plot sometimes but it is real. Intelligent Classics often depict solitary reflective characters which are not very common in life. Jane Austen didn't. Perhaps that is why not only intellectuals like Austen, whereas George Eliot is more likely to appeal to the more bluestockingish of us (and I must admit, I find it hard to digest George Eliot). I do think it is a pity that Austen could not create a character with an existentialist crisis (like Hamlet or Jane Eyre) but such characters do not survive the test of time unless the author is brilliant enough.

Some of you may argue that Charlotte Bronte was not realistic enough. This is true. Her heroines may come across as too ideal and of refined notions. But Jane Eyre appealed to those who recognised universal passion. It is sad that many do not see the actual message and depth of feeling in Charlotte Bronte, apart from the love story. Think again and ask why Villette and Shirley though classics are often not recognised by the amateur reader of classics? Shirley was too topical for its era, and we cannot identify wholly with it. The passion is also less effectively conveyed. Villette is too solitary, too morose and deep. There is practically no close community in that great book. This is not reflective o fmost of us, which is why compared to Jane Eyre, these two far more intelligent books have not been treated as well as the former.