I think we're pushing things by analogizing famous people/events in history with classic literature. But just to keep pushing, I would say that scholars know Gavrilo Princip because they understand that in one single act he unwittingly changed the entire course of the 20th century. I still contend the average man on the street hasn't a clue. Therefore, if Princip was a novel, scholars might call him a classic. The mainstream wouldn't.
Does that help?
My two cents:
I don't think any written material can be considered literature; literature, in my view, is merely a subcategory of 'written material', and as such is not defined only by its form, i.e. by the fact it is written. Literature is primary defined by being an art, only later by the form it is expressed in; the easiest would be to say that literature is the form of art which is expressed through the means of (written) words and language (which is its differentia specifica from other forms of art) to convey concepts.Originally Posted by Nightshade
Of course, I realise that this kind of definition brings the eternal question "but what is actually art? and how do you differentiate non-artistic from artistic writing?", but that would be better to leave for some other discussion.
This would require a rather lengthy elaboration. To be able to discuss what the concept of the "classic" means now, you would have to go back and see how it was used historically.What is a classic?
First it was used to stand for the authors of the classical antiquity, later also for the authors who wrote in "pure" language as opposed to emerging vulgar forms of Latin and who from the 'technical' point of view imitated the classics, and if you want to go even further in history, you could mark only authors of specific era as 'classics' because the era itself was later marked as 'classicism' (guess why), which evokes the similar problem as the one of defining 'classic' in music (because of the entire epoch named 'classical epoch', so strictly speaking by that scheme Mozart would be 'classic', but Chopin not, etc) - those are the cases in which the word 'classic' is used to represent works of specific time and place.
However, the word itself was actually mostly used to represent the most representative of its genre, even if you step out of literature - 'classics' of architecture are usually not 'classics' of belonging to certain art epoch, but are comprised out of all works which were representatives of its genres and streams; the term is likewise used in music. For some reason, though, we tend to be rather influenced by the 'myth of golden age' and its 'logical consequence' that - the further you are from golden age separated by time and change, the more 'degrading' you are - so usually no contemporary works are included as most representatives (of course, it is only until they are tested by the time and by whether they truly were the most representative, but we love to think that it is because there are "no more classics in our age" and that we are going downfall).
Still, this brings up some new problems, such as defining genre, defining stream, defining belonging to stream as conscious or not, etc; no matter how you put it, it is virtually impossible to say. Usually this problem gets solved by that people decide that not only 'best representatives' are included, but also most high of quality works (which then further brings issue of 'measuring' quality). And if you bring the education to the whole story, it gets even more complex, because it starts to assume that 'classic' is something you have to be familiar with by the education, that a part of making a 'classic' classic is it being recognised and taught as such, blah blah. Terrible, right?
My best friend usually defines a classic by the rather fixed canon of works of the past which had influenced literature greatly and remained well-known and taught. Of course, his definition still means that it would be culturally biased to say which works are classic, but he technically has a point. By current standards, at least.
A classic is "in da kanon", you will get it taught, mentioned and brought up as an example of whichever it is the classic of, and its worth has been recognised for generations. So, in a way, academia makes it.What makes a classic a classic and not just some old book?
Further, a classic is still 'actual', in sense of being read, studied, discussed, widely, as well as in academic setting as a part of studying Literature. Most of 'old books' are not, except by enthusiasts for that specific era or theme those books are about.
It also has to have influenced literature.
No, classic is not defined by an author, even when the author is already acknowledged. Each work alone.Is a classic defined simply by who produced it or should each work stand alone to be judged?
Again, quality is a difficult concept to debate, but yes, quality in the first place, followed by durability. Definitely not quantity.What makes a great author great, quality, quantity, durability?
I don't think there are "great" authors, only great works, which sometimes happen to be written by the same author.
Art is hard to judge, you can speak of it theoretically and try to find a 'pattern' for great work or author, but it is pretty pointless. In the end it always depends upon your taste, upon your education and upon your sensibility for art in general, not only written art. Assuming, of course, that you treat literature as art and not purely as 'amusement' in written form (sort of written variant of tv
Well,that's pretty much what I was trying to say with my previous post.I agree.
Noću, u intimnom, poluglasnom razgovoru sa samim sobom, nikako ne mogu zapravo logički opravdati zašto se u posljednje vrijeme toliko uzrujavam zbog ljudske gluposti.
Miroslav Krleža
I tend to agree. it didn't have much impact even when it was written, and that small impact has diminished since then.
I must disagree, we still read The Divine Comedy and I doubt Kafka or Borges will be forgotten despite being allegories. Anyways, You may argue, they all are a bit more than Allegories, but so is Animal Farm (alongside with 1984 they are too representative of fall down of idealisms, a universal truth ,and this may lead Animal farm to a long life - after all, you could with some argument use the allegories of Animal farm to any revolution that ended not changing anything in the social sense - Even the French revolution, no?). But of course, speculation and nothing else.
as literature, it is all writen text, it is not art as suggested (so why would we use scietific literature, heh)...
and Classic was pretty much defined by JBI, nothing much to add, except we can also say, a Classic also can survive the lack of reading - returning is a power and proof of their qualities.
The imperfections of English.It doesn't differentiate... Gah, forget it. In my native language there is a clear distinction between literature as art, and literature as simply written material (two different words), I automatically 'translate' "literature" in my head to the first one. That's what I had in mind.
Last edited by aabbcc; 05-23-2008 at 04:37 PM. Reason: .
I dunno, altough there may be different, but in portuguese there is no difference either. I would understand you, literature is often refered as the art, but the thing, as borges would point out, there is no reality to us to be sure, so the not fictional systems of today would be the fictions of tomorrow... So, if art was what was created... who knows... what was created...
Anyways, I would love to chat about the topics of what is literature and art or what is classic, and I do not want to sound nasty to you Anastasija either, but if we think in the intentions of the thread starter, it is bit silly, no. Even if we figure out definitions that are good, that does not mean the discussions in this forum would follow our definitions, actually, considering how much authorities have worked with those questions in the past and they fall in watever people think, we can be sure, nothing will be defined.
We could talk about the sun and the warm day, no?
Borges wrote many allegories, but he didn't write them about set events. Orwell wrote about set events, and everything is a reference to a specific event, and not revolution in general. It is because of that that the book loses its longevity. Most people don't read history voluntarily, and if they did, only a scholar is likely to read contemporary commentary on historical events.
well, a lot of very good books were written in 20th century. i know there's definitely a difference between a classic and a modern classic and a book can become a modern classic, normally if it's pre-1950. What would you call those books then?
I’m tempted to call them misnamed. A lot of great books were written in the 20th century, but I personally don’t like the term "modern classic." My guess is that the term started as a marketing device used by publishers like Penguin to hype their books. It’s like hearing something described as an "instant" classic. But it’s all gray area and I don’t think I can get very far arguing for some set period of time (100 years for example) before something is called a "classic." But my personal view on the matter is that "classic" ought to contain some notion of timelessness. And less than 100 years seems a blip in the grand history of literature. Just my opinion.
I might, in thinking about this further, be willing to concede to the idea that classic can also be thought of as prototypical. I can imagine somebody calling a Hemingway work a "classic 20th century piece". That is, it helps define that period of literature. I wouldn't call it a classic piece of literature. But a classic 20th century piece of literature. Maybe Animal Farm fits this category, or Catch 22, or whatever. Even within a single author's body of work, maybe we can use the word classic. "The Grapes of Wrath is the classic Steinbeck novel." I could go along with that definition of classic.
yeah, that's my point really. a 20th century classic.
No sense. Borges wrote a considerable ammount of allegories about History (watever you call Set Events, I wonder how this would answer for Kafka and Dante), included his own life, Peron and all. In fact, I doubt you would have allegories that mean something else that isn't real or distant from a universal happening, after all that is what allegory is.
It is funny, but I can imagine a revolution where people took power, but with time a tyrant exercise such control, that no changes happened and one of the guys declared himself emperor, which was what was the revolution was supposed to end - And that was the french revolution, not the russian.
And, yes, this happens - but I think the quality of Animal Farm is beyond a simple historical reading. I do not see people caring about it when reading War and Peace and if that was true, all historical plays of Shakespeare would be forgotten by now, after all how many care about 100 years war.
As set events I mean as follows. Borges' most famous allegory (I would think), The Library of Babel, is allegorical about the post-modern human condition. Its themes and content can be read by anyone with the same effects. Animal farm is an allegory about Stalin, with each event in the book being a commentary on a real event. The book features nothing outside of history, and acts as a mere commentary, rather than a statement outside of its historical boundaries. Each significant thing in the book is relating to history. Everything in the book relates to history, and therefore the book can only be read in light of history. It is because of that, that only someone wanting to study the history of the dawn of the Soviet Union in depth will find the book very useful. Most people will just end up reading a text book, and satisfy themselves with dates and events. The book itself doesn't really go beyond its time and place, and therefore becomes more and more a period piece as the time after its events increases. Lets be honest, in 100 years, they will have enough historical events to satisfy themselves, and won't likely dwell on our century.
There is allegories about Rosas and the wars in argentina in XIX century, there is allegory about Peron and his raises to power as well. Not to mention himself.
And when I first read Animal Farm as a kid I had no idea about the history- So, I would say your claim is truting in too much absolutes here.
More and even - if we do not go for speficics, you are just claiming that books that have a level of interpretation related to historical events would lose interest if the reader had no historical perception. I would say, he would miss it - but I do not see people not reading Aneid when they are not aware of the political propaganda that work is or since, we barelly know about it, Not reading the Iliad because we unware of the Trojan war.
1001 Nights was read and no one could say that 1001 Nights actually reflects the historical events. I do not see people needing to know the history of french to read Tale of Two Cities or Miserables.
I frankly think the history of Animal Farm goes beyond time and space and the theme of ideal destruction, of how revolutions in name of the "People" fail when Power (because power corrupts) starts to get separeted from them - it was not just the theme of Soviet Revolution as the name Napoleon can withstands.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote