Wild Things: YA Grown-Up discussion

I have to say, I don't like this "techincal" definition of a classic. I think it excludes a lot of books that I would consider classics. I would call To Kill a Mockingbird, Where the Red Fern Grows, A Separate Peace, etc.. classics, but they were all published after the cut-off date. What makes a book a classic? There should be a time constraint, but how long? Will Harry Potter and Twilight be classics someday? What do you think?

I think they get called "new classics" or something like that. Art is similar. I think anything after 1945 is considered contemporary art. I have the feeling these distinctions might be due for a change soon, no?

Despite my feelings about them, I think LotR are probably considered by many to be classics, so I would think HP could reach that distinction someday.

It seems to me that classic books, no matter what the man-made definition is, are books that stand the test of time. They are canonical in the sense that they are accepted and recognized by a consistently large number of readers through changing generations, tastes, and societal morés.

So, with that, Harry Potter and Twighlight will likely be classics. And like Jennifer, I ditto To Kill a Mockingbird (my all-time favorite book next to Wee Sir Gibbie), Where the Red Fern Grows, a Separate Peace, etc.

I agree with Karey. I don't think it has to do with when it was written. I think it depends on whether it has stood "the test of time." I couldn't believe that To Kill a Mockingbird would be considered not a classic by the standard definition.

In my eyes, a classic book is a book that has stood the test of time. Is that a little clique? *laughs*

I have to disagree on whether Harry Potter will become classic. Behind all the story its basically a coming of age story. I think it falls in the same niche as Lord of the Rings, Alice in Wonderland and Narnia

Renee wrote: "I have to disagree on whether Harry Potter will become classic. Behind all the story its basically a coming of age story. I think it falls in the same niche as Lord of the Rings, Alice in Wonderlan..."


But those ARE all classics:)

I completely agree with Kandice. I consider those books classics as well!

I do believe that HP will be considered a classic down the road because it attracts a wide readership and is fun/engaging while still dealing with some very serious issues.

LOL I think my quote is out of context. I was disagreeing with someone who felt Harry Potter would not be a classic. I compared it with Lord of the rings and Narnia to show that books like that can be classics

Well in that case, we agree with you! :O)

I don't know if I think HP will be a classic. Something about the term makes me think of books that are taught in school, and I have a hard time picturing my 8th grade English teacher having the class read HP... but maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read them all, the ones I have read I love. I imagine they will be around a long time, regardless of what people call them.

Teri makes a good point about the timeless themes that remain enduring-- but also, as she adds, they have to be well-written.

On the question of Harry Potter, I think we may be confusing the issue, since the fact that it has a HUGE following today doesn't necessarily prove anything about how future generations might feel about it!

Of course HP has a huge imprint-- but it's too early to say how much of that was peer-appeal, movies, etc.

It's also well to consider that, while Narnia has been a lasting contribution, its not clear that the whole series has consistent appeal. I loved the books as a kid, still enjoy them, but-- The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe clearly has the strongest intro appeal, with the siblings going through into the enchanted snowbound land & so on. Many of the later books are more esoteric, dealing less with child protagonists and their adventures, more with allegory & subtle literary riffing; frankly I wonder if all readers really "get" them?

Maybe in future years HP might be something parents start their kids on, but the kids don't bother to finish it with the gusto our own generation did?

That's interesting, Cathy, because I just started reading the Oz books for the first time, and I keep thinking to myself, 'what kid is going to know what (random large word) means?' Is it that kids are not being taught these words at a young age anymore, or is it that these books were written by adults in a time when many adults couldn't read, either, and so the authors weren't expecting children to read them...? I don't know.

Enid Blyton - I'd never heard of her - thanks for the recommendation.

I think that kids are indeed not being taught those words anymore, based on studies I've seen on the average reading level of elementary school books over the years. It's gone down.

Susanna wrote: "I think that kids are indeed not being taught those words anymore, based on studies I've seen on the average reading level of elementary school books over the years. It's gone down."

I think the difference now is not so much what children know/understand in elementary school but what they are expected to learn to understand.

When I was a child, 30+ years ago, my vocabulary was wider and slightly more 'old-fashioned' than most of my peers so I had no problem understanding classics. Exposure to classics and other languages also meant I understood unusual syntax more easily.
However children who had limited comprehension were given help to learn a larger vocabulary and understand non-standard syntax. They were challenged to improve their reading level by reading books outside their comfort zone.

Nowadays everything is acceptable and nothing should be criticized so non-words like 'irregardless' are found in a dictionary.
Parents and educators are so desperate for children to read anything at all that they daren't suggest 'difficult' books and as a result children have little chance to improve their language skills.

something you can still read like a century after it was written, as if it was written yesterday like Huck Finn but not Dickens that's difficult stuff to read

My personal definition of a classic is anything I read as a child and would still read now as an adult. :-) Incidentally, that includes most of the books listed in this folder.

For me, a Classic is a book that has stood the test of time and is still relevant to concerns and issues faced today. Classics for Children are, for me, books that have been around for a long time but still capture our imaginations. Usually the protagonist is a younger person as well, to help the reader engage with the story and the characters.