Printable View
Can anyone help me? I am trying to find out the general criteria for a classic novel? Who decides what becomes classic and how do they do it? Does a book have to have lasted a certain period of time before it is even considered?
Any comments or answers gratefully received. 8)
That's a good question. When the use of language is poetic enough, I guess, a book is kind of classic. I mean, realistic kinds of stories (by Stephen King, R. L. Stine) are definitely not classical. And also maybe the time thing. Maybe in 2300 the books written today can be classic. :)
I think a classic book is one that outlasts time-people today can still read Jane Austen and enjoy it because they relate to the characters, or read Dumas because they enjoy the development of plot and characterisation. That's what makes it really classic, but I guess the term tends to be used on books that have just managed to survive being around for a while too. Say a century maybe?
to be labeled a classic novel it has to achieve many things.
Morality - a classic novel should say something of value, drawing attention to human problems, condemn or applaud certain points of view. it should make a statement that is more significant than the "Chocolate cake is the world's best dessert" kind of comment. But we don't have to agree with the authors statement, it just has to be there.
Effective language - the language used should be forceful, fresh and not hackneyed, and suitable to the purposes of the statement/message.
Truthfulness - Is the work credible? Does the author make us believe what is being said? Such a standard cannot, of course, be applied literally. We do not believe in the literal truth of Gulliver's Travels or Candide, but we understand that the authors are using fantasy and exaggeration to communicate basic truths about humanity. Moreover, a good novel, story, or drama should give us the feeling that what happened to the characters was inevitable; that, given their temperaments and the situation in which they were placed, the outcome could not have been otherwise. Everything we know about Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman, for instance, makes his suicide inevitable. A different ending would have been disappointing and untrue.
Universality - Regardless of when it was written, the work should hold meaning still in the western world, and should still hold that meaning in the future. Huckleberry Finn, for example, although it has been called the first truly American novel, deals with a universal theme, the loss of innocence.
Timelessness - The work should be of lasting interest. The comments the author makes about people, about the pressure, rewards, and problems of life should still be relevant. The theme of the work should be as pertinent now as it was at the time it was written.
hope it helps.... if its still need
What makes a classic novel is the same that makes a classic haiku or a classic anything : A work which quality is such that his influence is spread in time and space - meaning since the work first showed other works keep being under its influence. Just it.
The essential quality is universality.
Generally a book that remains in print, and that has a lasting readership long after it was written, is a classic. (in my humble opinion) And the reason, I believe, that it reaches this status, is what Searcher101 said. Usually these books remain popular because they are great examples of the style of the time (or they could be very unique examples of writing from that time), they have relevance to people (and people feel they can still find meaning in it), people relate to it, and it covers universal themes that defy the boundaries of the time in which they were written.
I agree with those who said that unuversality makes a classic novel.
Someone said (maybe Umberto Eco, but I'm not sure about that), anyway, he said that a classic novel is an open one. It must suits your time and be open to modern interpretation.
I agree with those who said that unuversality makes a classic novel.
Someone said (maybe Umberto Eco, but I'm not sure about that), anyway, he said that a classic novel is an open one. It must suit your time and be open to modern interpretation.
Well a classic book should last - stand the test of time. It may not always be in print though and may be unacknowleged by the writer's contemporaries. So I guess we can tell what IS classic (though they are not all equal) but we are not sure what MAY BECOME classic. If we take genre into account then the question becomes more complex. King is a classic horror writer but will he stand the crucial test of time; I wont say as I don't know. It is also the case that a text in a minor language may be classic but may have few readers if it is not translated into a major language. Conferring classic status on text A does not mean that it is better than text B.Tens of thousands of women have read and enjoyed novels by Holt/Plaidy and she is undoubtedly a writer of classic historical/romance novels. Is she better than the Joyce of 'Finnegan's Wake'. Well she's a dashed sight more enjoyable! If Joyce had not written 'Dubliners' and 'Ulysses' who would remember 'Finnegan's Wake' but a few ideosyncratic literature profs.
Classic have nothing to do with number of people reading, popularity, genre (and King is not a classic yet, even of Horror). People may stop reading a classic - this will not change his status. Be in the print is irrelevant. Who prints Shappho and she is a classic notheless.
The Classic must remain alive as influence, not as reading. If people read a book and it cause no effect, it can not be a classic. (For Classic is before anything a model).
Universaility is interesting but irrelevant since the reader will do anything he wants to a book and transform a particular manifestation (Like for example, the Bible, in an universal book).
I would argue that you are incorrect. Although Huckleberry Finn is a universal work, the loss of innocence is not one of its themes.Quote:
Originally Posted by searcher101
Critics
A tradition deems them worthwhile - that is a classic. Which tradition deems them, depends on what type of classic.
There are for instance 4 (really 5) Great Classic Novels of China, which have and will continue to be held up as THE classic Chinese novels, but I think many Western readers would prefer them in much shorter versions, or not like the works. Similarly, I do not like much German fiction, yet that tradition will still hold up its classics. Generally it all has to do with the tradition's valuing at any given time, but the central point is it has to have passed beyond a certain point.
I like to think 2 or more generations after the author's original audience are dead - a generation being at least 18 or so years. King has still some time to go.
Im curious. What are these 5 classic novels from China?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Gr...assical_Novels
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Journey to the West
Water Margin
Dream of the Red Chamber
and Jin Ping Mei, though the fifth is a recent edition by modernist-contemporary scholars.
Thanks, the only one i have heard of is Dream of the Red Chamber.
The Journey to the West was also known as Monkey or The Monkey King (the title by which my Chinese friend knew the work).
Hi there! I am currently writing an essay about Atonement and To Kill A Mockingbird and "nostalgia" in the two texts. I was supposed to pick two "classic" novels, and although I think I can safely say Harper Lee's novel is "classic", I'm not sure I can say the same for Atonement.
Just wanted to say thanks to the previous commenters as they gave me a lot to think about, so now I just need to find some critics to justify what you all said! Ugh, effort!
Wish me luck :D
Maybe you could consider character as the defining factor of what makes a text classic. If you consider that all stories/novels/plots are reproductions of what has gone before (even Shakespeare is considered as rewriting previous plots) then surely everything should be considered classic.
However, the depth of character and reflection of human nature is what makes a text classic in my opinion. Especially with regards to Atonement; the story is revealed as false at the end, it is the charcter of Briony Tallis and her need to atone her wrongs that in my mind stand this in good stead to be considered a class.
Just something to consider.
not sold at a supermarket. Seems like a good enough definition to me.
You mean they don't sell annotated editions of Dante next to the spicy Doritos at your Piggly Wiggly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I think I know what 'spicy Doritos' are, but wtf is a Piggly Wiggly? No, don't tell me, that's what search engines are for! :lol:
This kind of reminds me about what the definition of a classic movie is. A cynical marketing ploy perhaps? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
Ok we've established that a classic novel stands the test of time, but what makes it do that.
Dickens, Austen, Fitzgerald, Atwood, Swift and George Orwell novels all have one common thread, if none other else.They all critique Society! A Social critique is were there author, director, poet and playwright portrays issues relevant to soicety at a particular time, some use mediums of satire, comedy, parody, creativity, Metaphors or sometimes just plain bluntness to express their ideas. anyone could write endless essays on these topics, just remember that it leaves the reader with a lasting message after reading the novel, leaves the reader to question society and whats encompassed within society, and hopefully they have enough sense to come to a conclusion.
We cannot say it in a sentence what makes a novel classic. Of course there many things depending on different contexts and situations and of course in the case of Aynd Rand it is characterization that is more important than anything else. And she seemed to have been more focused on character building and keep aside the characters in her novels they becomes soulless. In Dickensian novels all that matter is plot and they are the spirit of his novels. Whereas in Dostoevsky I find pivotal things in his philosophy.
But all these things make novels novels and keeping one aside it will lose something very vital the way all limbs make a person full and therefore I cannot say one unimportant. The way our eyes, ears, nose have their distinct functions so are the things I have said in the novel
A novel it's a classic if it deals with human feelings and behavior, and that it has survived time while not being forgotten.
Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections and Freedom are classic novels.
As mentioned above, one of the things that makes classic novels classic is that they stand the test of time, they present the golden oldies, the universal themes in fresh ways. But for me, I think most classic novels tend to, to put it simply, have a plot and have characters that you relate to in some way.
Classic novels tend to not be rambling literary fiction that wanders off on tangents; classic novels have proper plots, well-defined characters, but also tend to, at the same time, explore universal themes while working within the boundaries of standard fiction.
It is a very good question and reading through the comments a very good discussion. Looking over the books that we do consider classics you can find that there are unique things about each which makes them a classic and this can differ between each. For some it may be their style of writing, others morality or philosophical issues but each of them has something original about them.
I agree - in the sense that it can be understood and enjoyed regardless of whether it revolves around the society and world of 50 or even hundreds of years ago. It should be the meaning and story that is important to one's understanding of it, regardless of whether one has a thorough knowledge of the world the author is writing from. A classic must need to have a lasting message, applicable by anyone's standard - how else does it outlive pulp fiction to still be read even centuries later, when entire social structures and world contexts have changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
:)
It is philosophy that makes a novel classic. See the Brothers Karamazov for instance.
Keep aside its philosophical part you will have nothing
i just want to back up Stephen King, who a few have stated that his novels will not become classic. this is just my opinion, but i think King's work may come to be regarded as classic because he has explored some interesting themes about evil, and in some cases, human spirit. i know that a majority of his books may be horrors, but Shawshank and Green Mile are masterpieces that may become classics (in my opinion). Also, horrors shouldn't be excluded from being called classics, because aren't "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" just horror stories too?
Other than that, i agree with everything else that has been said on this board, some good posts guys :)
If I may I agree with the original author of the statement. The loss of innocence may not be the central theme in the work, but it is a theme. Huck is thrown into a world that is very different from the one he knows, that can be in a sense referred to as a loss of innocence.Quote:
Originally Posted by five-trey
Well, the only way to settle this now is with a poll. :biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by RhapsodyDiablo
Interesting thread. My opinion: As many different authors as there are who have written classics, all have different styles, strengths, and weaknesses. I think if you listed the qualities of each writer and then began eliminating them to find something in common, you'd end up with nothing.
People are different; they like different kinds of writing, different kinds of music, movies, etc. The only way I can see to define a classic written work is one that affects enough people that it stays around.
Best,
Calidore
A novel becomes a classic if JBI, JCamillo, MortalTerror, Petrarch'sLove, and I deem it to be so. End of discussion.:biggrin5:
Now pass me the beer and crank up the Elmore James!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBk1faWI-k&feature=fvst
:party:
Unless it's all an April Fools' joke and the right answer is "Text from ancient Greece/Rome," I'll ride these^ coattails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
couldn't agree moreQuote:
Originally Posted by fayefaye
But each of us has the right to deny one nationality status. Oddly enough 4 votes denied any status to Canada and 1 vote denied any status for the state of California.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild