Defining 'classic' and 'literature'

[JBI]

Orwell is already falling into obscurity. He published more than 2 books you know, and how many people read them all? 4 of his 6 novels seem to already have gone the period piece walk, being only read by people studying Orwell, his 3 personal experience books also seem to be period pieces, and have disappeared with the period.

Like all social political criticism, much of his work is dependent on the period. Your opinion of animal farm seems to be making it something that it is not. Orwell's personal politics seem to contradict your thoughts on Animal farm, and you are just pushing aspects of it into a pseudo-universal when they are quite specific. It is similar to some readings of Sun Tzu, where the reader feels that each sentence is a metaphor in some way or another for how to live one's life. The reader will assign new meanings to the most specific of things simply because Sun Tzu was an old Chinese scholar, and therefore carries a sort of sage-like presence amongst readers. The book itself is a rather good piece of war and political philosophy, but it's economic and lifestyle tips are simply manufactured by the reader's memory. That's how I think your reading of Animal Farm is. You are taking your knowledge of history, and revolution, and projecting it onto the book in places that Orwell would not have even agreed with you. That reading then becomes a personal reading, and doesn't prove anything beyond that Animal Farm jogged some memories from your mind. Future readers will not have the same experiences, and therefore the work will say less to them.

Shaw, Wells, Rossetti, Rousseau, and Petronio are not all minor authors. Wells perhaps is, but Shaw most certainly is not (There is a Shaw Festival going on at Niagara falls right now to prove he is still widely preformed). Rossetti is remembered also for his paintings, which will carry him beyond a major poet of the Pre-Raphaelites to a major artist. Rousseau was never minor, and pretty much cooked up the French Revolution in many ways, and his novel Julie, Or the New Heloise is still an excellent read today. He was the first celebrity best-selling author of all time, to the point where books were rented out by the hour.

With that, I have to leave until 9:00 EST, but I'll continue this later if you are still up to it.

[Nightshade]

OK if we are saying that a classic is a work that is continued to e read not just by academics but the masses as well for at least a century after its conception then surely this would follow,

Can we call something a classic that tomorrow isn't regarded as a classic anymore?

, because when it comes down to it as we move further language evolves and it becomes harder to comprehend what was without training, which would mean that less people would pick up work to read simply because it appeals to them, which if you continue to follow this line of thought till its end boded dire for people Shakespeare, because although hes unlikely to be forgotten, the fact reminds at least 9 of 10 people who first come across Shakespeare do so as a result of formal education, which argues that he doesn't actually appeal to people until hes been rammed down their throats for a few years.

I am quite willing to accept that a classic is a typical example of a work of its kind, it would make sense I suppose although that means you also have classic Danielle Steels, and classic mills&boons/Harlequin romances things.

But I wonder if you want to find out about the social aspects of a time wouldn't a book with mass market appeal be more useful than an intellectual work?

As for Animal Farm I think that it can be read without the political historical background as an allegory of what happens when people try to improve things with violence, the corruption of ideals and all that.

[JCamilo]

Orwell is already falling into obscurity. He published more than 2 books you know, and how many people read them all? 4 of his 6 novels seem to already have gone the period piece walk, being only read by people studying Orwell, his 3 personal experience books also seem to be period pieces, and have disappeared with the period.

Err, Orwell journals are only published in Brazil for the first time in the last 5 years. Seems like his obscurity is basead in a very short sighted perception. One of the most popular programs today is Big Brother and the Matrix abused of Big Brotherism - The life of certains authors can be measured by the amount of "non reading" of his work despite how his popular his creations are. You are joking me, Melville is probally less read them Orwell and falling from non-reading periods to worshiping once or while. (Melville another great example of allegorist of specific events, and an immortal one). A Classic is not only a book that is read all the time, but one that once forgotten can come back.

Like all social political criticism, much of his work is dependent on the period.

Again? So is Victor Hugo or Voltaire and the Aeneid. They all really depends of the time and they are alive.

Your opinion of animal farm seems to be making it something that it is not.

Really? Either you point out what makes my opinion of Animal Farm to be what it is not or your generalizations are not building any argument.
Anyways, Virgil was once read a pre-cristian (In the georgicas they saw a prediction of jesus coming), Voltaire as democratic, etc. Misinterpretation is a fair game and a great reason for works living outside their time. And again, I have pointed that to you.

Orwell's personal politics seem to contradict your thoughts on Animal farm, and you are just pushing aspects of it into a pseudo-universal when they are quite specific.

Bah, As I pointed a book live outside the intentions of the author. Orwell Personal intentions have nothing to do with what kind use of the later generations do.
In fact I pointed to you how out of context Animal Farm is used, so either your understand that there is a difference between what I know Animal farm is and what I know what Animal farm perception is or your are running in circles and bitting your own tail. If one can make his own interpretation independant of the context, the historical context have no importance.

That's how I think your reading of Animal Farm is. You are taking your knowledge of history, and revolution, and projecting it onto the book in places that Orwell would not have even agreed with you. That reading then becomes a personal reading, and doesn't prove anything beyond that Animal Farm jogged some memories from your mind. Future readers will not have the same experiences, and therefore the work will say less to them.

I have no pointed a single personal interpretation of Animal farm. I have pointed others reading and there is where your argument fails - People misinteprete the Animal farm.

Shaw, Wells, Rossetti, Rousseau, and Petronio are not all minor authors. Wells perhaps is, but Shaw most certainly is not (There is a Shaw Festival going on at Niagara falls right now to prove he is still widely preformed).

Because a festival? Really ? How many socialists anarchists like Shaw are alive to interprete his works in the light of his rebelions? And please, Shaw is minor while compared to Joyce. Eugene O'Neil is minor. Rostand is minor. Agatha Christie is minor (bellow minor maybe, and isnt she the author of the long-running play of all time? )

Rossetti is remembered also for his paintings, which will carry him beyond a major poet of the Pre-Raphaelites to a major artist.

Of course, but I am talking about his work as poet.

Rousseau was never minor, and pretty much cooked up the French Revolution in many ways, and his novel Julie, Or the New Heloise is still an excellent read today. He was the first celebrity best-selling author of all time, to the point where books were rented out by the hour.

O_O Rousseau was the first celebrity best-selling author of all time? Dude, Rousseau was outshadowed by Voltaire, considerable more popular and dominat than him. And if we consider Rousseau as a bridge between Voltaire age and the romantic age he is overshadowed by Goethe, who he copied and as star, by Lord Byron. Close to them he is a minor writer and frankly, you are equating quality with popularity? Not you.
I think you are misunderstanding, Minor among majors, not between watever wrote Varney the vampire in the XIX century.

With that, I have to leave until 9:00 EST, but I'll continue this later if you are still up to it.

of course, sure

[The Atheist]

Interesting thread, which seems to have largely answered its own question.

To me, the separation of classics from everything else is the same as how we separate classic art from the mundane, classic cars from the everyday sedan and antiques from mass-produced furniture.

Simply, the lasting appeal makes something into a classic. If it stands the test of time, it becomes a classic, otherwise, it doesn't and will be forgotten.

Gulliver's Travels and Canterbury Tales will stand as clasics, they have already survived too long to be considered otherwise, yet, in what way is Canterbury Tales relevant to today? Not at all.

The main thrust of discussion seems to be whether Animal Farm will stand that test of time, and it seems that the ongoing discussion actually answers that question in the affirmative. Here we are, almost 70 years after publication of the book and the subject has dominated this thread.

That looks pretty much like a QED to me.

Sure, Orwell's lesser works are mostly overlooked, but then again, who reads Dickens nowadays? Are we going to re-classify Dickens as "just more books" because they go somewhat out of vogue? No. We will continue to enjoy and rediscover Dickens just as future generations will rediscover Animal Farm.

Books which are multi-generational can be safely added to the "classics" category. Animal Farm has already well and truly passed that test.

I see a lot of worrying about influence and derivative - I say, "so what?"

It seems to me that every author is guilty of being influenced by his or her forebears, which is exactly how the evolution of mankind has always worked. If the wheel had not been discovered already, why should it be necessary to invent a new one to use for the internal combustion engine? We all borrow from our experience - that's what it's for.

[Niamh]

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.

Literature is basicly anything that is written text, from a church pamplet, to the Annuls of Ireland to novels by Jane Austen or a book by Deepak Chopra.

[JBI]

Voltaire's Aeneid rooted in its time? I don't think Virgil lived in the time of the gods, and, according to classical texts which I think he must have read (perhaps even more texts than we have) the events of the Trojan War were in a different age than the regular Greek times. That is, Homeric Greek times, Virgil was how many years even after that? Virgil writes of the foundation, the same way one now could write about the foundation of the united states, he just didn't really follow history, and made it up as he went.

I did not say allegory is bad, which only a fool would say. I said Animal Farm is not for all ages, which is different. You went on to project that it speaks of revolution in general, and not specific events, and therefore has scope beyond its historical confines, I say you haven't really read into Orwell enough, he was quite the revolutionary himself.

I pointed out the Shaw Festival as a means of saying to you, not only are people still reading Shaw, but they are actually seeing him preformed. How many other playwrites can you say that about?

Voltaire bigger than Rousseau? Maybe, if you only count novels (Have you even read Julie?). In terms of thought Rousseau was far more important, and either way, in that time period, for novels Sterne outshown both of them. I don't know how many people will agree with you that Rousseau is smaller compared to Voltaire; to me he seems perhaps the most important figure of his time. His work seems to be the root of not only the revolution, but also the subsequent romantic movement. Everything in the past 200 years seems to be somewhat under his influence.

You seem midway through your argument to do an about-face and start changing your argument to agree with me, but saying that I disagree. I don't know what to say, other than, thank you.

[stlukesguild]

The life of certains authors can be measured by the amount of "non reading" of his work despite how his popular his creations are. You are joking me, Melville is probally less read them Orwell...

It's certainly a waste of time to continue to argue whether Orwell will stand the test of time or not. I've stated my opinion and given the reasons. I simply disagree... or suspect that Orwell's Animal Farm will ultimately be but a period piece. I do agree with your argument in pointing out that the amount of work not read has nothing to do with the lasting reputation of an author... even if only based largely upon a single novel (and a few short stories and poems) as it is in Melville. Melville remains a giant largely upon the basis of a single masterful novel.

As minor I am already ignoring all those who will be forgotten. Minor as George Bernard Shaw, H.G.Wells, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rousseau, Petronio are minors when compared to Joyce, Woolf, Dickinson, Poe, Voltaire or Horace. I think it will survive, but are we prophets ?

The description of a given writer as "minor" is certainly relative to whom he or she is compared. Shaw, Wells, and Rossetti may certainly be "minor" in comparison with Joyce, Voltaire, Dickinson, Woolf, and Horace (although certainly not Poe)... but that is arguable. Rousseau, on the other hand, is "minor" in no sense of the word. He was overshadowed by Volatire? "Was" is the key word. How many works of Voltaire's beyond Candide continue to be read outside of the French-speaking world? Rousseau's impact upon history, philosophy, and literature was immense. His influence upon Romanticism unquestionable. Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, Blake, even Goethe were undoubtedly and even self-admittedly influenced by Rousseau. His impact upon educational theory as expounded in Emile carried over to Dewey and even to current progressive educational theory. His novel Julie is one of the great and most successful epistolary novels, while his Confessions essentially established the modern autobiography as a genre and remains among the most read and most influential books of the period. I don't recall when I have ever scanned a shelf in the philosophy sections in any good book store and not come across the Confessions, The Social Contract, and even Emile. Yes, Goethe may dwarf Rousseau... but who, during that period, did he not dwarf? He dwarfed Wordsworth and even Blake... neither of whom can be considered "minor". With the passage of time you may be right about Rossetti (Much as I love his work, he's not Tennyson, Browning, or Baudelaire) or Shaw... but I would predict that Orwell will be even more forgotten when his work has reached the same age as theirs.

[JCamilo]

Voltaire's Aeneid rooted in its time? I don't think Virgil lived in the time of the gods, and, according to classical texts which I think he must have read (perhaps even more texts than we have) the events of the Trojan War were in a different age than the regular Greek times.That is, Homeric Greek times, Virgil was how many years even after that? Virgil writes of the foundation, the same way one now could write about the foundation of the united states, he just didn't really follow history, and made it up as he went.

Ah, good god, I do not think Orwell also lived during the time animals talked. Aesop was the last to see such thing... Despite the Homeric theme, The Aeneid can be only understand, fully understand, if you know it is a political propaganda work, if you know that was the period of Augusto re-building the Empire and despite talking about a time before time, Virgil is talking about his age.
I do not believe you are taking the poetical setting as the literal setting in this the argument.

I did not say allegory is bad, which only a fool would say. I said Animal Farm is not for all ages, which is different. You went on to project that it speaks of revolution in general, and not specific events, and therefore has scope beyond its historical confines, I say you haven't really read into Orwell enough, he was quite the revolutionary himself.

The problem is when you give the reasons you list only the reasons that make an allegory an allegory (for example, the roots in specific historical events), I countered it listing several works and allegories who are able to stand out in the text of time and pointed that the reason can only be the quality of the work or not.
I also pointed that very few people read books knowing fully the background of the author. Several works survived despite and mostly because of misinterpretation - I pointed out even part of Animal farm that is already popular and used out of the context. I also pointed that Animal Farm can (I find funny because when I was young all revolutions that build moderm age are placed in a bag named "Burgoise Revolutions", using the similarities - which appear in Animal Farm because they appear in the soviet Revolution - yet you insist there is nothing universal in the story of revolution. Meh, the name Napoleon should be clue enough that Orwell was not with the French Revolution out of his mind) be used for several other revolutions - Anyone familiar with the Cuban revolution can easily tie Napoleon with Castro, Snowball with Che Guevara and there goes.

I pointed out the Shaw Festival as a means of saying to you, not only are people still reading Shaw, but they are actually seeing him preformed. How many other playwrites can you say that about?

Shaw is a great name, but Agatha Christie is still performed, no? That was no measurement of greatness - but Shaw is a great point, What people know about Shaw radicalism when reading him, for real?

Voltaire bigger than Rousseau? Maybe, if you only count novels (Have you even read Julie?). In terms of thought Rousseau was far more important, and either way, in that time period, for novels Sterne outshown both of them.

Considering Voltaire for novels is a bit outstreching. Voltaire during his life was the most popular and leader of french philosphers without having even build a system of philosophy. Even in Rousseau area, which was the most popular care, social vision, Voltaire actions outstanded Rousseau, who was important on his own, of course. Candide is a considerable more lasting, important and relevant text that all fictions Rousseau wrote and even Sterne. Even Rousseau who suffered a crazy envy for Voltaire would tell him how big the thin man was.

I don't know how many people will agree with you that Rousseau is smaller compared to Voltaire; to me he seems perhaps the most important figure of his time. His work seems to be the root of not only the revolution, but also the subsequent romantic movement. Everything in the past 200 years seems to be somewhat under his influence.

Rousseau? I would rather List Goethe before him, even the "education" novels are Goethe's idea and not Rousseau. Of course Rousseau is important in the area of pedagogy, education, equality but so is Voltaire - his popularity leads him, an aristocratic that had no desire to share power with the people - to be worshiped by the masses and the quality of his texts is considerable superior to Rousseau.

You seem midway through your argument to do an about-face and start changing your argument to agree with me, but saying that I disagree. I don't know what to say, other than, thank you.

funny, I was considering that to you. Even those lines about you I said before... ahem...

[JCamilo]

The life of certains authors can be measured by the amount of "non reading" of his work despite how his popular his creations are. You are joking me, Melville is probally less read them Orwell...

It's certainly a waste of time to continue to argue whether Orwell will stand the test of time or not. I've stated my opinion and given the reasons. I simply disagree... or suspect that Orwell's Animal Farm will ultimately be but a period piece. I do agree with your argument in pointing out that the amount of work not read has nothing to do with the lasting reputation of an author... even if only based largely upon a single novel (and a few short stories and poems) as it is in Melville. Melville remains a giant largely upon the basis of a single masterful novel.

More than agreed, may argument was not even really if Animal Farm would resist or not, but how just because a book have roots in one period, is an allegory, it cann't survive as it was implied earlier.
Side noted, Melville could survive even without the whale, Benito Cereno and Billy Budd alone could easily put him alongside Poe or Henry James.

As minor I am already ignoring all those who will be forgotten. Minor as George Bernard Shaw, H.G.Wells, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rousseau, Petronio are minors when compared to Joyce, Woolf, Dickinson, Poe, Voltaire or Horace. I think it will survive, but are we prophets ?

The description of a given writer as "minor" is certainly relative to whom he or she is compared. Shaw, Wells, and Rossetti may certainly be "minor" in comparison with Joyce, Voltaire, Dickinson, Woolf, and Horace (although certainly not Poe)... but that is arguable. Rousseau, on the other hand, is "minor" in no sense of the word. He was overshadowed by Volatire? "Was" is the key word. How many works of Voltaire's beyond Candide continue to be read outside of the French-speaking world?

Yes, That is what I meant, Orwell minor compared to other great names. Not minor in the Dan Brown sense.
One work that is more read than any work of Rousseau would be enough, but Zadig, Micromegas, are all read beyond french world (I am not french). Even philosophical texts of Voltaire are still read (I am not french neither speak it) but I am the first to say Democracy is considerable important and Rousseau is behind it - but we are talking about writers, fictional stuff no?
Voltaire is behind the roots of Science Fiction and his irony have left hand in every classicist after him - Machado de Assis, Carlyle, Borges, Karen Blixen, Eça de Queiroz even Flaubert. There is no reason to believe the lasting fame of Rousseau made up for the time they are alive and now they are even.

Rousseau's impact upon history, philosophy, and literature was immense. His influence upon Romanticism unquestionable. Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, Blake, even Goethe were undoubtedly and even self-admittedly influenced by Rousseau. His impact upon educational theory as expounded in Emile carried over to Dewey and even to current progressive educational theory. His novel Julie is one of the great and most successful epistolary novels, while his Confessions essentially established the modern autobiography as a genre and remains among the most read and most influential books of the period. I don't recall when I have ever scanned a shelf in the philosophy sections in any good book store and not come across the Confessions, The Social Contract, and even Emile. Yes, Goethe may dwarf Rousseau... but who, during that period, did he not dwarf? He dwarfed Wordsworth and even Blake... neither of whom can be considered "minor".

Never denied Rousseau importance. Anyways, the Voltaire vs. Rousseau lives beyond time as it seems and goes to pointless - They are all minor close to Goethe - and as you said, Minor is relative to someone else, so why you are now saying Blake and Wordsworth are not minor when compared to Goethe?

With the passage of time you may be right about Rossetti (Much as I love his work, he's not Tennyson, Browning, or Baudelaire) or Shaw... but I would predict that Orwell will be even more forgotten when his work has reached the same age as theirs.

With Notable exceptions, a great writer manages to left his work remembered just by handful or works, so it will be with those, but are you sure? Orwell is already more remembered than all those but Baudelaire. The Big Brother already moved to another step with the high technology, it is a figure that seems to be destined to have the immortal impact of other symbolic figures that live beyond their works. Shaw, Tennyson, Browning and Rossetti are barelly read outside intelectual circles (mostly the 3 poets) despite the great quality of their work. In 100 years poetry may raise again and take prose place as main reading and their text may return with power but it is all a bit prophecy that we are not going to live and see.

[The Atheist]

Subjectivity and appeals to authority.

It's clear that nobody has yet defined "classic".

What I've seen so far are subjective opinions on what the word means. Is it a term describing books revered by an elite set of academia? Is it books over a certain age which survive? Is it popular choice? (Please, not the last...)

A second-hand bookshop I go to has a "classics" section where I was delighted to find Dennis Wheatley rubbing shoulders with Orwell, Joyce and Shaw.

One man's classic is another man's toilet paper.

In art, there's a easy standby - price. The market ultimately decides what is and isn't worth preserving. With books, we can only go by popularity and longevity before devolving into the instrinsic "worth" of the story itself - an impossible task.

I've seen some books noted that are very highly regarded in certain circles which I wouldn't let my dog sleep on, but the fact that I think they're rubbish is of no relevance whatsoever.

Let's try this tack:

The whole point of books is getting people to read them.

If "classics" are defined as a set of books which are almost universally ignored - then the world of literature is making an elitist statement dismissive of what books actually mean. Seriously, guys, who reads Voltaire outside of arts courses? Who reads Shaw - other than those who grew up with him during school and university?

In art, Monet, Raphael, van Gogh and Salvador Dali are almost universally admired, as are Beethoven, Mozart and John Lennon in music.

Classics are read, not selected.

[JCamilo]

Seriosly, the discussion we are having here have not much to do with the question because the majority of people here already answered what is a classic. It is not that hard to define what is, it is hard however to agree which moderm books are classics, a very different question.

Classics are not read. It is not the same of popular. They are selected, not by a bunch of intelectuals, but by years and societies. And yes, CLassic is a matter of elitism, after all those are the best books of all time, when you grant such title, you are elitist, but not all elitism is a form of oppression and you can not make democratic option from everything.

[kelby_lake]

Perhaps for 'modern classics' the best term is 'cult', which acknowledges the fact that they are widely read, leaving obscurer things a more snobbish recognition