The Classics

Nope, haven't read 'On Writing'.

This is only a personal opinion,
When I read a book I don't do it to escape as I believed when I was younger. Actually books help to build my reality; I think that a good book tells us something about ourselves that we didn't know -or that we hadn't conciousness of. There is a new meaning growing up from the relationship between reader and text. There are authors that enables us to build these kinds of meaning, and others that don't. Some best sellers simply are predictible, and having readed one or two of them, the reader knows that he'll not find new things.
I guess it's better judge after read.
At once, someone asked J.L. Borges why he didn´t like Goethe. And the old man said: Perhaps you like him; but I don't do it because I have readed him.
Of course he was ironic and a little bitter, but I think he was right.

EAP and The Unnameable what's all this bickering about?
I agree that there are loads of differences between Classics and non-Classics... I do tend to find most Classics more interesting to read than most popular fiction (at least than most popular fiction of the very low-brow, tacky sort).... BUT: i also believe people should enjoy reading... so they should read whatever it is they prefer... i don't see any point in forcing anyone to read books they don't like.. yeah, I mean, at school/univ you can force students to read Classics, and maybe they'll even like the books afterwards... but you can't force people to like them.... besides, if the Classics' message/ style/ whatever is universally valid, why don't people automatically love them? if there was something in them for EVERYONE, why doesn't everyone feel that way? if the classics were really that universal, why do loads of people have to be forced into liking them? does that mean 90% of humanity are just too daft? or does it just mean, Classics aren't that universal at all? maybe ppl who are into Classics have to call them that to make them seem more worthwhile to read? I don't see any point in that... a book doesn't have to be universal or perfectly written or whatever to be interesting to read..... besides, what do we mean when we say literature has to be about "the human condition"???? which human condition are we talking about? the situation of people in the third world who are starving and don't even know how to read and write? certainly not. or the situation of, say a Hispanic cleaning lady who doesn't know any English???? or maybe we're just talking about the condition of those who can afford to have sophisticated issues like "the human condition"?
i absolutely agree that some popular writers aren't good writers in any narrow sense at all, but if people wanna read their books, that's up to them, isn't it?
if you like Classics, Unnameable, that's fine. I mean, it's your right to like them and nobody would want to deny you that right... just because some people prefer popular lit doesn't mean their preference constitutes an attack on you.. i mean it's their business FULLSTOP... if you consider them stupid or unsophisticated, so what? what do you wanna do about it?
**********
@ alicialiv
errrr, let me get back to the topic of this thread...
yep, I've had Lit teachers like that, too... we had this godawful old hag in secondary school, who'd never read a single popular fiction book in her whole life... the problem with her wasn't so much that she didn't like popular fiction... it was more like she took for granted that Classics are the only kind of lit worth reading, but she never explained what makes people think that way... she just took it for granted... also, and that was the major problem, she didn't seem to get much of a kick out of reading classics... i mean she preeched about them, all right, but she didn't seem to enjoy reading at all... (dunno w h y she was a German Lit teacher in the first place...). i mean, if she loved the Classics so much, shouldn't she have enjoyed reading and teaching them?
this woman really spoiled Lit for me when i was in school......

When did this suddenly become a thread of wits? Thanks to everyone who ANSWERED my question by giving their opinions. I guess the idea of reading something for pleasure has become lost on literary critics who condemn 'simple novels'. Thanks again for everyones reviews!

I don't think anyone's criticising reading for pleasure, or condemning 'simple novels', just the proposition that just because a book is enjoyable and popular, it deserves labelling as a 'classic'.

The actual dispute is about the meaning of the word classic. Does it simply describe a book written long ago, that is still popular today? Or does it imply that the book is somehow deeper and more intellectual in nature?

And ultimately, who are we to say whether a modern book is a classic or not? That task lies with future readers. Will they find that Stephen King & Nora Roberts still speak to them across the years and offer insights into their own situations? Or will some book that sold only a few thousand copies and that few of us has heard of be hailed as a 20th/21st century classic in the centuries to come?

The jury is out (and is likely to stay there for a hundred years at least!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Or will some book that sold only a few thousand copies and that few of us has heard of be hailed as a 20th/21st century classic in the centuries to come?

The jury is out (and is likely to stay there for a hundred years at least!)

---

Perhaps this is relevant to what you have said and perhaps not. To ‘celebrate’ the arrival of the Year 2000 the BBC (I think) conducted a poll for ‘Musician of the Millennium’. Mozart was second, narrowly beaten by Robbie Williams. If they conduct a similar poll for the year 3000, perhaps neither of them will be mentioned. However, if only one of them is, I know which one I’d expect to see. I love Robbie. He's so cute! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alicialiv

When did this suddenly become a thread of wits? Thanks to everyone who ANSWERED my question by giving their opinions. I guess the idea of reading something for pleasure has become lost on literary critics who condemn 'simple novels'. Thanks again for everyones reviews!

---

No not on me. First priority is always entertainment. But, if it's only entertainment, what is there for us to discuss?

I have not really ever understood what classics actually means. If you talk to one intellectual it is human condition+philanthropy. another says human condition+religion. still another insists it is human condition +social lives of the time.
I don't know. But to me any book that has well formed and multi layered characters that cut deep into the heart and mind of the reader as well as allow us a peek of the way of life of a particular time and place plus is something that ten years later you can pick up and fall in love with all over again is a classic. Add to that it must, in my mind teach us something and have at least a smidgeon of good triumphing over evil.
other than that I really cannot define a classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

College professors can be overly intellectual, and frankly they themselves don't know why some things are classic and some aren't; they have a curriculum and if it's not part of it somehow it must be superficial. But that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for considering something a classic (commonly referred to as being part of the cannon) and something that isn't. these are several considerations:

(a) craft and style. Did the writer create a most perfect structured work with the most elegant of writing style? Robert Louis Stevenson comes to mind here.

(b) Originality of ideas. Has the writer thought through and expressed ideas, especially those that reflect the human condition, that no one else has presented? Golding's Lord of the Flies suddenly just came to mind.

(c) Aestheic vision. Has the author constructed a work whose aesthics refelcts his society and the world view of his times. Dante's Divine Comedy is the absolute best example.

(d) Originality of artistry. Is the writer just writing the same old story but with different names and settings? Or has he taken a story (and there are only a small amount of story types to choose from) and cast in in a new way to amke it interesting? Joyce's Ullyses comes to mind here.

There may be other reasons that I can't think of. I'm not judging any of the authors you mention. Frankly I've barely read any of them. Just remember, lots of writers were put down as poor by the intellectual ellites, but over time were proven to be classics. Fundementally, if you enjoy it, read it. But don't ignore the classics either. A lot of work and discussion has gone into them by lots of people to establish their greatness.

---

Rachel - On page 1 of this thread I gave some of the considerations as to what makes a classic. I've quoted it above. As you can see it doesn't necessarily have to do with philosophy or human condition. It can, but it doesn't have to. First consideration is always the artistry. For those who insist on something abstract or overly intellectual as human condition, then I would suggest that the writer write an essay or a work of philosophy, not a work of fiction.

yes I can agree with that, but that is not what I have been told in school. depending upon my teacher it was always something different and I admit I gave up listening to any of them and just took what I felt in my heart to be a classic.
thank you very much. Now I am the wiser.

i tried to check out a danielle steele book from the library once when i was younger, because i thought the cover was pretty. my mom told me to put it back because it was trash. i concider her very well read, so i put it back and never bothered to read any of her books since.
but once she told me to put back naked lunch by william s burroughs and i did. but later i checked it out with my dad, and later still, i bought it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alicialiv

I understand that their books are not The Classics but should we shun books simply based on the fact that they are not full of literary commentary, alluisons, and such?

---

Yes.

1234567890

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byucougs

So my question is this: Is there such a thing is a modern classic? Could such books as Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Wizard of Oz be considered a classic. What about Steinbeck? He seems very modern. Is he a classic author? Just some questions to ponder.

---

It depends on what you consider modern, but I'd consider some contemporary literature potential classics. Richard Russo's works, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeK

A good way to distinguish between classics and run-of-the-mill popular novels is that classics leave a lasting impression while non-classics leave you soon after you put the book down. Classics get better each time you read them(there's more depth), while non-classics seem less interesting each time(you've discovered all there is to know the first time).

---

True. I'd also say there has to be some balance between form (literary style) and function (story).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flora

I often meet people, who think the opposite - anything that is elder than fifty years is not worth of their attention. They get annoyed with sentances longer than five words, and judge the book by its age, its cover, the author, saying that it doesnt have anything to do with the world we know today.

---

This has some truth to it. There are a lot of people, at least in my experience, that think they are readers, but don't really read anything that doesn't have Fabio on the cover.