what makes a book a classic?

[cacian]

1) what are the components of classicism ?

and

2) can you spot a 'classic to be' when you see one?

[PeterL]

The main thing is that someone says that the bookis a classic, and someone else repeats that.Then more people repeat it until people actually believe it.

Books that are on the ordinary lists of classics range from inane and poorly written to great works of literature.

You probably were hoping for a well defined set of characteristics, but there simply aren't any.

[cacian]

The main thing is that someone says that the bookis a classic, and someone else repeats that.Then more people repeat it until people actually believe it.
Agreed. It is a word of mouth and it travels fast and so yes lots of so called classics are actually quite dull and have nothing to them.


Books that are on the ordinary lists of classics range from inane and poorly written to great works of literature.

You probably were hoping for a well defined set of characteristics, but there simply aren't any.

No I was not hoping for a defined set of rules in as much as the classic themselves are insignifanctly lower in that range or even remotely close to showing what a classic actually means.

[PeterL]

Even though some of the classics are nt good, there may be good reasons for including the. I am thinking of Robinson Crusoe. That ws one of the earliest novels, but it was poorly written, and there isn't much to it. But it was notably early in the development of the novel as a form.

[stlukesguild]

1) what are the components of classicism ?

"Classicism" is an artistic style, like Modernism, or Romanticism. It has nothing to do with the lasting status of a book (or any work of art). If you are asking, as I suspect, for a check-list of what makes a book a classic, that is an absurd question. There is no stylistic consistency or requirement. A "classic" or "canonical" work of literature is simply a work of literature which has survived over the years and continues to be recognized by the literary "experts" (critics, historians, academics), subsequent writers of merit, and the informed readers as an important or essential work... a work of great artistic and/or historic importance.

can you spot a 'classic to be' when you see one?

With experience you may develop an ear for the truly well-written work of literature... but the ability to consistently recognize future "classics" is a skill few have... for the simple reason that it involves the ability to judge truly "new" works and recognize the really innovative from the mere novelty. It also involves the ability to discern just what shall be valued by a future culture.

[stlukesguild]

It is a word of mouth and it travels fast and so yes lots of so called classics are actually quite dull and have nothing to them.

So in other words the opinions of a great many critics and academics, and writers, and informed readers means nothing. If you personally don't like a book or find it dull, then there must have been nothing to that book? Why do you suppose a book would continue to be held in great esteem by an audience well-versed in reading and literature if the work were completely lacking? Is it not possible that such a book actually is of great merit... but you simply don't like it? It is not also possible that the book is well written, innovative, and challenging... and you simply aren't up to the challenge?

[stlukesguild]

I think it was Harold Bloom who suggested that if there was a common element to be found in the canonical work of literature, it was "strangeness". I think there's an element of truth to this description... especially when confronting the most central works of the canon. We often fail to recognize this strangeness because of the fact that it eventually becomes absorbed by later writers... but just look carefully. Think of the strange brew of a Novel like Moby Dick contrasted to other novels of the time: the contrast of the merely narrative passages which carry the story onward with the strange inclusion of those almost encyclopedic passages which convey every imaginable aspect of whaling in minute detail and those poetic... visionary passages that turn this whaling adventure into something akin to a religious or spiritual Odyssey on the level of Dante's Comedia, Paradise Lost, or Homer's Odyssey.

Hell! Look at the Comedia. What audacity! The author has dared to create an entire world... and entire universe... to suit his own ideals. He has dared to place Popes and Emperors while raising the object of his own sexual obsession into the Empyrean where she may sit at the right hand of the Virgin Mary. William Blake declared, "I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's." Has any writer beyond Dante ever created such a fully realized system... such a fully realized universe?

[AlysonofBathe]

"Classicism" is an artistic style, like Modernism, or Romanticism. It has nothing to do with the lasting status of a book (or any work of art). If you are asking, as I suspect, for a check-list of what makes a book a classic, that is an absurd question. There is no stylistic consistency or requirement. A "classic" or "canonical" work of literature is simply a work of literature which has survived over the years and continues to be recognized by the literary "experts" (critics, historians, academics), subsequent writers of merit, and the informed readers as an important or essential work... a work of great artistic and/or historic importance.


Couldn't have said it better myself! Classic does not necessarily denote readability or general enjoyability to modern audiences even; it's just a mark of endurance.

[Charles Darnay]

Couldn't have said it better myself! Classic does not necessarily denote readability or general enjoyability to modern audiences even; it's just a mark of endurance.

Isn't this a bit of a paradox. I completely agree that "a mark of endurance" is the essence of whatever we define as a classic, but in order for a book to endure doesn't it have to be readable and or enjoyable to a modern (constantly changing modern) audience. If it is not, there would be no new editions printed, no inclusions in anthologies, and such books would cease to endure.

[cacian]

Couldn't have said it better myself! Classic does not necessarily denote readability or general enjoyability to modern audiences even; it's just a mark of endurance.

A mark of endurance? It sounds like it has to endure whatever conditions for it to last which is totally defeatest ot what I think a classic could be.
For me a classic means something that is easily remembered/accessible and lightely acknowledged wihtout having it forced into our consciousness by mean of a tragedy because that is what endurance means to me.
Humans are more likely to remember (endure) something written in a tragic manner because of its somber/tragic context .
I personally would rather remember something or a story for its lightness and enjoyable expressions because the story was enchanting.
MY idea of a classic is not just about human sufferance and tragedy it is also about human success and positivity in encompassing not just difficult times but easy times too.
That is my idea of a classic.
Of course with all due respect I can see what you are saying but I feel that it is time classic books reflect life in its beauty and ease and humans in their bestest time.

[blazeofglory]

I use all of them simultaneously in fact. When I am inspired by something, some events or some imagination which becomes ordinarily inexorable I write poems to give vent to my overpowering emotions, and I do it restively, wildly, going adrift the gale of impulses. There is no rule or course and I become like a swollen river overflown and uncontrollable and here my poems are born.

When I am rather patient, and pensive and take a very restrained course and move relaxingly I do write prose. There will be prosaicness and banality and yet there will be flavors of imagination though there will be no torrent of impulses.

But when it comes to writing essays my course will be much more controlled and disciplined and I weigh up my thoughts to ensure I will not be contradictory. Here I will write my opinions or theorize something.

In fact all of these disciplines underlie something common like imagination has a role in all of them but there is a matter of proportion and when I write poetry imagination will have its major quotient and when I write essays thoughts will dominate my writing.

[FranzS]

A mark of endurance? It sounds like it has to endure whatever conditions for it to last which is totally defeatest ot what I think a classic could be.

The previous poster was using "endurance" in its literal sense. "To endure" simply means to last, to survive.

[FranzS]

1) what are the components of classicism ?

A "classic" or "canonical" work of literature is simply a work of literature which has survived over the years and continues to be recognized by the literary "experts" (critics, historians, academics), subsequent writers of merit, and the informed readers as an important or essential work... a work of great artistic and/or historic importance.



I agree with this definition. There are numerous "classics" that I haven't enjoyed much, or that I felt to be seriously flawed, but that I could see were culturally important.

Somebody wrote that while some books are undeservedly forgotten, none are undeservedly remembered. There are some great works of literature that didn't gel with the fashion of their times, and so these days are underrated. Conversely, there are books that hit the mood of the times, and so become more famous than their literary qualities might merit. Personally I feel "Steppenwolf" and "The Great Gatsby", while enjoyable reads, are not the masterpieces often claimed [runs for cover] - but I'd accept their status as "classics" all the same.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree with this definition. There are numerous "classics" that I haven't enjoyed much, or that I felt to be seriously flawed, but that I could see were culturally important.

Somebody wrote that while some books are undeservedly forgotten, none are undeservedly remembered. There are some great works of literature that didn't gel with the fashion of their times, and so these days are underrated. Conversely, there are books that hit the mood of the times, and so become more famous than their literary qualities might merit. Personally I feel "Steppenwolf" and "The Great Gatsby", while enjoyable reads, are not the masterpieces often claimed [runs for cover] - but I'd accept their status as "classics" all the same.

[starts throwing rocks]

No, despite my love for Gatsby I do take your point. The success (cultural success which leads to endurance which leads to "classic" status) is not based solely on the book, but its cultural roots. For example, we (as a mass) do not have the same hunger and fascination for Gothic literature as was enjoyed in UK/America in the late 18th-early 19th century. Thus, modern attempts to create another Wuthering Heights or Mystery Of Udolpho will ultimately not rise to the same success as these two books.

[cacian]

The previous poster was using "endurance" in its literal sense. "To endure" simply means to last, to survive.

Oh I see.. I somehow understood enduring as in putting up with something for a long time.

[Darcy88]

The last time this exact same thread popped up I defined a classic as a work which possesses remarkable quantities of truth and beauty, both of which qualities I feel are broad enough to encompass pretty much all that we look for and notice in those lasting books of great literary merit. Someone disputed this but I recall not being otherwise convinced.

[PeterL]

Oh I see/ I somehow understood it enduring as in putting up with something for a long time.

That is exactly the thing when it comes to some classic literature.

[Charles Darnay]

The last time this exact same thread popped up I defined a classic as a work which possesses remarkable quantities of truth and beauty, both of which qualities I feel are broad enough to encompass pretty much all that we look for and notice in those lasting books of great literary merit. Someone disputed this but I recall not being otherwise convinced.

Aha! So I wasn't suffering from deja vu. We have to stop this recycling of threads.

[AlysonofBathe]

Isn't this a bit of a paradox. I completely agree that "a mark of endurance" is the essence of whatever we define as a classic, but in order for a book to endure doesn't it have to be readable and or enjoyable to a modern (constantly changing modern) audience. If it is not, there would be no new editions printed, no inclusions in anthologies, and such books would cease to endure.

Readable and enjoyable to who though? A lot of modern readers won't touch classics because of a lack of immediacy. Classics are endowed with classic status because of an endurance in their status, usually given by academics and literary critics.

[FranzS]

Readable and enjoyable to who though? A lot of modern readers won't touch classics because of a lack of immediacy. Classics are endowed with classic status because of an endurance in their status, usually given by academics and literary critics.

You sound as though you're blaming authors of the past for not being "relevant" enough to future ages - as though there was anything they could do about that.

If someone decides that anything that doesn't read like a Facebook post is not relevant or too difficult or not modern enough, that's a sad indictment of the scope of their horizons.

These days we are encouraged to see history in terms of ourselves, rather than ourselves in terms of history. 30 years ago (at least here in the UK) literature didn't have to justify itself; we were told "This is the good stuff, make the effort and you might find you like it" by people (teachers) who knew what they were talking about.

Those of us with enquiring minds trusted their judgment, came to love literature, and decided that there was actually something to be said for the passing of knowledge - and yes, of opinions too - down the generations.

These days everyone moans, "What does a book written 200 years ago have to tell me about my life?" I want to say: How about turning your gaze away from your navel and looking outside your life?

[Charles Darnay]

Readable and enjoyable to who though? A lot of modern readers won't touch classics because of a lack of immediacy. Classics are endowed with classic status because of an endurance in their status, usually given by academics and literary critics.

I suppose this is a fair point. It really brings into question the role of the literary critics/elite vs. the masses when it comes to "classics". I would like to think that a book is a "classic" because the masses deem it so, but it is probably the reverse - the masses deem it a "classic" because the literary elite say so.


You sound as though you're blaming authors of the past for not being "relevant" enough to future ages - as though there was anything they could do about that.

That was not the point.

[FranzS]

I would like to think that a book is a "classic" because the masses deem it so, but it is probably the reverse - the masses deem it a "classic" because the literary elite say so.


The day literary merit is dictated by the masses is the day I abandon literature.

The masses would send "The Da Vinci Code" into space as the pinnacle of human artistic achievement, and burn Shakespeare.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread topic has cropped up several times before. I don't mind though . . . I think it's always a good literary discussion,


I think it was Harold Bloom who suggested that if there was a common element to be found in the canonical work of literature, it was "strangeness". I think there's an element of truth to this description... especially when confronting the most central works of the canon. We often fail to recognize this strangeness because of the fact that it eventually becomes absorbed by later writers... but just look carefully. Think of the strange brew of a Novel like Moby Dick contrasted to other novels of the time: the contrast of the merely narrative passages which carry the story onward with the strange inclusion of those almost encyclopedic passages which convey every imaginable aspect of whaling in minute detail and those poetic... visionary passages that turn this whaling adventure into something akin to a religious or spiritual Odyssey on the level of Dante's Comedia, Paradise Lost, or Homer's Odyssey.
I think this quality of "strangeness" (though I thin "uniqueness" would be a better word--strange seems to connote a negative aspect) really is one of the most common characteristics, though, of course, not universal. It's quite hard to write something revolutionary while also doing what's been done before, not that it can't be done.

The last time this exact same thread popped up I defined a classic as a work which possesses remarkable quantities of truth and beauty, both of which qualities I feel are broad enough to encompass pretty much all that we look for and notice in those lasting books of great literary merit. Someone disputed this but I recall not being otherwise convinced.
I agree with the idea behind this definition, but I'm not sure it works as a definition for what a classic is because it's so subjective. It seems for this to be true, all the classics would be universally appreciated because their greatness is just that apparent, but that isn't the case. Plus, this would also include the numerous books of wonderful beauty/quality/merit that don't make it into the canon into the category of "classics." I think what you're describing is something more broad--great literature in general, and I think the notion that greatness and being classic automatically goes hand-in-hand is debatable.

[AlysonofBathe]

I suppose this is a fair point. It really brings into question the role of the literary critics/elite vs. the masses when it comes to "classics". I would like to think that a book is a "classic" because the masses deem it so, but it is probably the reverse - the masses deem it a "classic" because the literary elite say so.

That's all that I meant. I personally enjoy the classics, but how much of that is owing to my education, throughout which I had the classics drilled into my by professors, who knows? I have many intelligent friends who read constantly, but would be unlikely to pick up Tolstoy or even something more accessible like Bronte.

I think once a book acquires the status of classic, it can be pretty hard to shake.

[AlysonofBathe]

You sound as though you're blaming authors of the past for not being "relevant" enough to future ages - as though there was anything they could do about that.


Of course no author can predict future trends in literature. My point was only that many readers, not all readers, refuse to read classics because of a lack of immediacy.

[stlukesguild]

For me a classic means something that is easily remembered/accessible and lightely acknowledged

Unfortunately for you, (but quite likely fortunately for us) definitions of words and concepts don't depend upon your personal interpretations. "Classic" literature is literature that has survived beyond its own era and continues to be recognized as being of great merit (aesthetically and/or historically) with an audience of literary "experts" (critics, academics, etc...), subsequent writers of merit, and/or the well-read audience. This is a simple statement of fact. Whether you or I or someone else likes or dislikes a given "classic" is irrelevant to its status, although certainly questions of merit... or how "good" or "bad" a book is is something always open to discussion and debate.

...without having it forced into our consciousness by mean of a tragedy because that is what endurance means to me.

Actually.... I didn't know that most "classics" were "tragedies". On the other hand, I don't see how your preference for or against a certain subject matter or content plays the least role in discerning whether something is or is not a "classic". I might as well say I don't like red, and thus no painting that employs red can be a "classic" painting. Discussing classic literature and discussing the books you like is not necessarily one and the same thing.

Humans are more likely to remember (endure) something written in a tragic manner because of its somber/tragic context.

You are completely losing me here.:confused:

I personally would rather remember something or a story for its lightness and enjoyable expressions because the story was enchanting.

I don't like red... thus red paintings can't be good. I don't like tragedies... thus tragedies can't be "classic literature"?

My idea of a classic is not just about human sufferance and tragedy it is also about human success and positivity in encompassing not just difficult times but easy times too.

What makes you think that "classic literature" hasn't long embraced the beautiful and the inspirational as well as the tragic?

[FranzS]

That's all that I meant. I personally enjoy the classics, but how much of that is owing to my education, throughout which I had the classics drilled into my by professors, who knows? I have many intelligent friends who read constantly, but would be unlikely to pick up Tolstoy or even something more accessible like Bronte.

I think once a book acquires the status of classic, it can be pretty hard to shake.

True.... But I think it's reasonable to refer to the judgment of someone you trust when you want to know whether something's worth reading. When I read a book review, I'm not just taking in what the reviewer says about the book, I'm also taking in what they reveal about themselves, their own tastes, how much they appreciate artistic subtlety.

For example, when I browse the reviews on Amazon, I'm more likely to be persuaded by one well-written and well-argued review, than ten badly-written ones that draw the opposite conclusion.

The fact is, in my experience, that most of the books held up to be classics are indeed as good as is claimed. And I think that is because most professors of literature know what they are talking about: that's their job. Of course they will differ among themselves, but it would take a real contrarian to argue that Shakespeare or Tolstoy are rubbish.

There are some books that don't get the recognition they deserve. I felt that "New Grub Street" by George Gissing, for example, was one of the best novels I've ever read, but rarely do you hear Gissing mentioned in the same breath as Eliot or Hardy.

It really depends what you are reading for. I prefer to read books that are deep and well-written, but some people, including intelligent people, just want a story, and don't even mind if it isn't very well thought through. To appreciate Tolstoy doesn't just require intelligence, it requires a certain temperament.

I could quite understand that some people might find Tolstoy or Eliot slow-moving and dull, because their interests lie elsewhere than psychology and historical events.

And it can take time to appreciate some types of writing. When I was a teenager, the bits of Dickens that I read I found dull. As an adult, I started to see what the fuss was about. There are lots of books that you can only appreciate when you've developed a feeling for language and an interest in other lives.

On the other hand, even as a teenager I loved Shakespeare. I remember reading "Julius Caesar" at 15 and being surprised that something written 400 years ago could be every bit as gripping as a modern thriller.

[cacian]

well another of looking at it one might ask themselves this

why is this book a classic?

and unless it answes it immediatly then maybe it is not all that classic.

[blazeofglory]

well another of looking at it one might ask themselves this

why is this book a classic?

and unless it answes it immediatly then maybe it is not all that classic.

This book is a classic since it features some of the well defined attributes of literature in the book, not necessarily with an air of classicism a book will be a classic. It is the depth or the deftness in the style of writing that makes a book a classic.

[fb0252]

possibly we r limited in understanding by our inability to intelligently read instead of skim and get into book reading contests as one sees on this site so often, a lot of books. Simple as that. how can one person rate or delineate without having read almost everything. who has done that besides Harold Bloom, so we take Bloom at his word.

I am surprised to fail to see the word "intelligence" mentioned as how u define a classic--as in Of Mouse And Men is other than high IQ, whereas if u pick up Borges or Saramago almost everything they write will be a "classic" compared to the aforementioned.

[stlukesguild]

well another of looking at it one might ask themselves this

why is this book a classic?

and unless it answes it immediatly then maybe it is not all that classic.

So, if the book leaves you baffled, then it cannot be a "classic"? I can't be that you simply dislike the book... or that the book is too challenging...?

[Shevek]

I think what makes a work a "classic" has little to do with how appealing or accessible a book is to a certain audience. In that vein, the notion that classics are merely "subjective" selections does not bode well. Wouldn't the plays of Ancient Greeks and epics of Homer be irrelevant to people today in such a case? Since this is difficult to digest, I'd start by looking at the existing corpus of literature and how a particular work contributes to innovating the accepted techniques. Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders could be considered a dull, unrealistic portrayal of morality given Moll's far-fetched redemption, but Defoe's use of an unreliable narrator (although it is debatable whether Moll is actually unreliable) definitely innovated the earnestness of prose romances during his time.

I also do not believe "classic" has much to do with the renown a work gets, despite the frequent contemporary usage of the word as a synonym for how popular or well-liked something is. I think a work as complex as At Swim-Two-Birds, while not a good example of a widely-liked novel, deserves the status of classic despite Brian O'Nolan's (or if you prefer: Flann O'Brien, the pen name under which he published the novel) relative obscurity. At Swim-Two-Birds takes Irish literary traditions from many eras and subverts them (almost mockingly) through frame narratives. The result is a wonderful critique of the novel itself. O'Nolan challenges how both writers and readers of fiction are so attached to the idea that characters are mere inventions of the authour rather than pastiches of people who already exist or have existed. Of course, I am not suggesting all classics require a meta-fictional approach. But I cannot see how the label of "classic" can have much significance if it does not involve innovation of the literary status quo.

[Jair]

A classic is any work that will forever hold meaning for its readers. If it endures, it is a classic.