What really makes a book a Classic work?

[krishna_lit]

I really have this doubt. I just finished reading Franz Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis.' It was said to be a classic and the seminal work of the author. But, honestly there was nothing in there that would make it so. There was no proper reasoning at all for the plot, and the drama and reactions in the book were completely absurd and some stuff in the book like the lodgers was completely ridiculous and useless.

I also recently read 'Fahrenheit 451' but it's plot idea was a very unique one even though I didn't find the narration so gripping for such a plot. But it's way better than this Metamorphosis thing.

So, now I have this doubt, "What exactly makes a book to be qualified as a Classic in Literature?"

I mean, if somebody pens a book like Metamorphosis today, I believe they would be bashed to ground with criticism because there would be nothing worth the read apart from the symbolical display of how people do change or treat somebody when they appear to be different in society. I mean that's a fine point but not enough to make a place among classics.

[JBI]

Kafka is not a classic work.

In general I think there requires a clear distinction in terms of classical works, as received works, and classical works, as canonical works.

Generally speaking, we use the word to refer to two sets of literature, one, the Classics in the sense of Roman, Greek, Hebrew, etc. authors of the pre-medieval period, who generally laid out the foundation of thought and discussion for the entire tradition (Plato, Confucius, Moses, Muhammad, etc.). Generally these textual traditions formed in two ways - one, they included into the status of highly esteemed texts a selection of what they deemed the most important works, and then secondly, only such works, whether by means of fire or by lack of copyists survived.

The canon is therefore what has come down, and what has been esteemed in a mix - literary inquisition and lack of public interest in specific texts broke some of the lineages of works (whereas we still have several feet worth of St. Augustine, he being the most copied of authors), yet for the most part the seminal ones have been static since the time of Alexander. They were agreed upon as containing the essence of an oral tradition in transition to being a written tradition, and therefore contain the "Essence" or the desired "essence" of the civilizations that listed them. This is highlighted further by the change in classical to medieval mentality, whereas before one would write a book of philosophy, by the latter period it seems once would more likely write a book about a book of philosophy. The late comers had to write a continuation or a development, rather than start their own textual lineages.

As for the second definition, that which is canonical today, well, nothing before 1800 can really be said for certain, I think. It is far too soon to make judgments on the literature of the past century, if not only to select a "short list" which undoubtedly would include Kafka. As time goes on, the short list most likely will only include 10-20 authors from the 20th century as a total, while the rest will be shelved, because the books will move from current fashion toward a place in the long catalog.

That being said, with time comes change - the writers today, if they wish to write within a tradition, must engage Kafka as a predecessor, not as something modern or current. In that sense, one could not write metamorphosis today, (despite the bureaucratic, soulless nightmare only expanding in the modern era), but it can still resonate with an audience, who will forgive its style as "of the past".

[Aceda]

Here are some aspects of literary classics...

-A classic is a book that is continually studied for generations by students.
-A literary classic encorportates a moral or some eternal meaning.
-Timelessness is another aspect of a literaty classic. Will people be reading the book a mere 80 years into the future?
-Quality, The book must be seen as of value by people globally.
-Relevance, Does the book still have any relevance?
-Foresight, not all classics encorportate frightening foresights but it is an area touched by many classics.

Lets take Pride and Prejuduce as an example...

✓Studied by students to this day
✓Moral included
✓People continue to read the classic
✓The classic has quality language among other things
✓Deals with issues still relevant to this day

[JBI]

Just as an interesting question, how many of our current "English works" will become "Dated" with the passage of time from a linguistic perspective. I bet half the English novelists we revere would be rejected if their language grew distant from the standard. In that Sense, we should begin to reevaluate our canon on the international criteria to judge an accurate performance - we used to say, Wharton compared to James, yet we should also add Zola in there, and Soseki in there, and a whole bunch of other late realist-early modernist authors. When we compare things then, we realize that our bias is what keeps half the canon alive today, that is, our linguistic limitation.

From a theoretical perspective, a canon should be judged outside of "fashion" (meaning, it was fashionable to read French and German in Russia, therefore they had an abundance of influence, outside of the work's actual merit). We also, I would think, be required to draw out works of other linguistic and cultural traditions to draw a "the best works to read in one life time." In that sense, half the canon almost instantly is cut out.

So, for Renaissance drama, for instance, we would be required to read Racine and Moliere, therefore with the exception of maybe 3 Elizabethan dramatists (Shakespeare being in the centre), we would be forced to ignore, as casual readers the little guys, and the lesser plays. When we add in Chinese drama of the same period, then we may even cut out Marlowe and Jonson until we are only left with the Bard from England, then Racine from France, etc.

The whole classical idea in a sense is based on fallacious understandings of reading trends. Quite simply, to deem something a classic based on its "being read", I doubt many of the most classical authors - Aeschylus for instance, or Cicero - are even read all that much, despite being the central authors of the tradition. Internationally speaking, the biggest authors are Hebrew and Greek Biblical writers, Arabic writers and recorders of the Koranic tradition, A dozen Chinese canonical authors, and then Shakespeare. The Koran and the Bible are not read much in China, whereas Confucius' Analects (written by his students' students, not the teacher) are rather little read, let alone the major classics (Chinese classics are divided into Books and Classics, classics remain unread by the public).

Our general idea of a "Classic" work is a period piece, in a sense. It is a fashionable item of a current time. Current periods can stretch for 100 years easily, and some of these figures will enter the general tradition, however obliquely. Yet still I am weary of such criteria and "modern classic", "Instant classic" status giving. It seems a premature statement filled with nonsense. The canon itself evolves as texts evolve, I think Jane Austen herself would be shocked and amused by the weird reading her books have taken by the public 200-odd years after her death.

[Vota]

2 pieces I read recently that I will re-read many times that I think might be interesting to you guys:

Harvard Classics- book 32, "What Is A Classic", by Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, about 15 pages long.

Little Essays In Literature and Life- "Re-reading Books", by Richard Burton, about a 5 page essay. This one might be hard to find, but maybe it can be found online.

[Aceda]

2 pieces I read recently that I will re-read many times that I think might be interesting to you guys:

Harvard Classics- book 32, "What Is A Classic", by Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, about 15 pages long.

Little Essays In Literature and Life- "Re-reading Books", by Richard Burton, about a 5 page essay. This one might be hard to find, but maybe it can be found online.

Seems interesting, I'll take a look at those.

[NedSiegel]

I believe the answer is simple: a book that remains in print for decades (centuries even better) is a classic. It could be a literary classic or a children's classic, but it's a classic. It could be considered trashy in its day, but if it has staying power, eventually it will become a classic. Dickens' stories used to be considered light reading for the masses when when they first came out (usually serialized in magazines), but 50 years later they were already considered classics and become even more so with every passing decade.

[mande2013]

JBI:

What do you think that 20th century short list will end up being? Joyce, Faulkner, Proust, Kafka, Virginia Woolf, T.S. Eliot, Nabokov, Pynchon, Gertrude Stein, W.B. Yeats?

Runners Up: Henry Miller, Burroughs, DeLillo, Bowles, Gaddis, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, Hemingway, Evelyn Waugh, F. Scott Fitzergerald, Graham Greene, Steinbeck, etc.

I don't know. I just can't say how many of the major literary names of the 20th century I see eventually being shelved with the passing of current fashions.

[Hal]

JBI:

What do you think that 20th century short list will end up being? Joyce, Faulkner, Proust, Kafka, Virginia Woolf, T.S. Eliot, Nabokov, Pynchon, Gertrude Stein, W.B. Yeats?

Runners Up: Henry Miller, Burroughs, DeLillo, Bowles, Gaddis, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, Hemingway, Evelyn Waugh, F. Scott Fitzergerald, Graham Greene, Steinbeck, etc.

I don't know. I just can't say how many of the major literary names of the 20th century I see eventually being shelved with the passing of current fashions.

No to Gertrude Stein. She never wrote anything that could remotely be considering canonical.

[mande2013]

No to Gertrude Stein. She never wrote anything that could remotely be considering canonical.

This basically sounds to me like a work needs to possess a certain amount of bourgeois palatability without, at the same time, being too conventional, as if there's some balance that must be struck.

[Hal]

This basically sounds to me like a work needs to possess a certain amount of bourgeois palatability without, at the same time, being too conventional, as if there's some balance that must be struck.

what?

[mande2013]

It just seems maybe Gertrude Stein's work is perhaps too inaccessible and divisive to be smoothly canonized. It's like Schoenberg in music or Pasolini in cinema.

[kelby_lake]

This basically sounds to me like a work needs to possess a certain amount of bourgeois palatability without, at the same time, being too conventional, as if there's some balance that must be struck.

A classic has to have some sort of universal appeal. Stein is a prominent example of a particular movement but that doesn't make her work classic. I Spit on Your Grave is a prominent example of a video nasty; doesn't make it a classic film.

I think that classics must be paradoxical in their attitude towards time. Although they should be timeless and still have something to 'say' to our modern world, they should also be of their time and say a lot about that period of history. The pleasure comes from realising that the two worlds aren't so far apart after all.

[NedSiegel]

No to Gertrude Stein. She never wrote anything that could remotely be considering canonical.


Agreed. She may be considered an important mentor to novelists, a trendsetter, but not a great novelist per se.