Should have read classics discussion

Lisa and I have often asked each other, what classifies a book as a classic? Now I see Joy and Lisa discussing that same question again....so, in your mind what would you say makes a book a classic to you? Does it have to be on some certain list? Do you think there exists some secret librarian criteria set that makes a book "classic" material? Does the book have to be so many years old to be a classic? Is it about the author as much as the book? Is it about popularity of the book? Are there are books that you think will be considered classics in the next 10 or 20 years? Let's see if we can answer this question together.

I've asked myself this question a few times. I'm not really sure what makes a book a classic. I've often wondered if there is some kind of criteria to deem it so. When I think a book is a classic it is normally because I've heard it referenced in many different places and it's always an older book. I'm interested in what everyone else thinks!

Although I by no means have a certain definition, I do believe a classic can be read by different generations and in different eras in history and still stand the test of time. In other words, it still means something to people and they can learn from it, no matter now long ago it was written. I do believe that there is a time factor in the equation. Other than that, I believe it to be much a matter of opinion.

Sometimes I wonder what certain books have that others don't. It definitely needs to be a fabulous story, one that grabs your attention. Like Justice Potter Stewart said " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it." Does that make sense? Sometimes you just know when a book is a classic.

Kelly wrote: "Although I by no means have a certain definition, I do believe a classic can be read by different generations and in different eras in history and still stand the test of time. In other words, it still means something to people and they can learn from it, no matter now long ago it was written."

That is a great point. I completely agree.

I doubt there is a difinitive answer to the question, but I looked up some things and found a few ideas that were noteworthy. A classic must be an old book, because it has to have stood the test of time, been enjoyed again and again by each new generation. Wikipedia gave this definition "A classic book is a book accepted as being exemplary or noteworthy, either through an imprimatur such as being listed in any of the Western canons OR through a reader's own personal opinion. And Italo Calvin, in his 1980 essay "Why Read the Classics" says a classic is "a book that has never finished saying what it has to say". He also wrote "YOUR classic author is the one you cannot feel indifferent to, who helps you define yourself in relation to him, even in dispute with him" ... and finally "There is nothing for it but for all of us to invent our own ideal libraries of classics."

Joy wrote: "I doubt there is a difinitive answer to the question, but I looked up some things and found a few ideas that were noteworthy. A classic must be an old book, because it has to have stood the test of..."

Ohhh...I love your quote of a classic is "a book that never has finished saying what it has to say." That's going in my quote book. Thanks Joy!

Yes, must agree, that is awesome!

I liked it too ... I don't think I ever heard of Italo Calvin, but plan to look him up and hopefully find the full essay that was referenced.

That is a great quote!

I was doing some snooping around on the Internet and found some other threads about "what defines a book as a classic" and there were two interesting ideas people presented...one is that classics have "universal themes that defy the boundaries of the time in which they were written" while the other said that universality didn't matter but rather that a "classic must remain alive as influence, not as reading." What do you think?

I'm thinking all the things that have been mentioned are part of what makes a book a classic.

For me, a classic is a book that has been around and endured the test of time and was never forgotten by people.

Other people say (in college mostly) that dead white men’s books become classics but obviously that isn’t the end-all-do-all. Or at least shouldn’t be.

However, Aren’t classics dubbed a classic by the same people who choose like a newberry or Caldecott award?

Patrick, I agree that a classic is a book that sticks around and continues to be read beyond the usual lifetime of a book. However, the Newberry and Caldecott committees merely award annual prizes to books they think are spiffy per their particular guidelines. Some of these award winners stick around; some are forgotten pretty quickly.

It should also be said that sometimes classics rise from the dead--Moby Dick, for example, was pretty dead almost from its publication but took off later when some critic said Hey, this doorstop makes a pretty good book. Also, most books that have been published over time have been pretty crappy, so being old doesn't make a book a classic.

The dead white man thing. Ugh. Here's the deal. Until very recently, women and minorities didn't have much in the way of opportunity to publish anything. Publishing since the middle ages has been the province of white men, most of whom are dead. Proportionately, then, most classics are by dead white men. The argument (in college mostly) that you are referring to, proposes that works by people other than dead white men deserve to be re-examined for merit and the whole of literature re-jiggered to include neglected but worthy works. Of the old stuff, of course, there isn't a whole lot to choose from but there are certainly gems. More important is the question of what becomes a classic as the opportunity to write and publish becomes more widely available.

Many men admit to avoiding works by women. Many white people have no interest in works by people of color. Relatability and prejudice are big factors in what people choose to read, so white people (the majority of readers in Europe and North America) tend to gravitate to books by white people. Women tend not to have the same gender aversion and are quite comfortable reading books by men, and minorities have long been reading books by white people, since books were until recently written almost entirely by white people. So what you have is a large audience for books by white men, a somewhat smaller audience for white women, and a small (but growing) market for men and women of color.

If a book becomes a classic because it sticks around, it needs a substantial continued readership to keep it in print. White male writers may not be superior in terms of the quality of their output, but they have an audience size that even now gives them a huge advantage in terms of remaining in print long enough to become a classic.

There's been a lot of debate| over this topic in recent yrs, as you might imagine. I wish I had $1 for every time I've engaged with it.

My private opinion was mostly refined contesting the term as applied to movies and music; but books can also be sheltered under the reasoning I'm about to submit.

First observation: the criteria which gives grounds to nominate any work of art/craft/culture as 'a classic' can be quite varied.

Support can stem from reviewers, buyers, sellers, promoters, publishers, auction houses.

There's initial fans, there's long-term fans, there's groupies and cults. There's awards and awards-giving bodies. There's rises/falls in pricing, there's value to collectors and investors.

There's revenue-earned-on-release, and revenue-earned-over-time. There's the esteem from contemporary peer artists.

There's the admiration of other artists given yrs later, or their admission that their own work has was influenced by these precedents.

As I say, there are many such factors. All of these help build our opinion of whether an item is classic or not.

But I assert that the danger of a "mistaken estimate" (whether a book is a classic) stems from listening too fervently to any one source.

If you trust only reviewers, you will likely not recognize that reviewers are often wrong. If you believe that the size of the fanbase says the most, you might wind up in another pothole.

Revenue? Very untrustworthy.

Awards? Almost pointless to even mention.

And not artists or authors themselves, surely.

So, who has the most telling opinion in such matters? Every "trustworthy" indicator seems to admit far too many exceptions.

There's some books which initially sold millions but which later generations regard as fluff, and there's also great books ('Moby Dick', or 'The Great Gatsby') which went unnoticed at the time of their release.


All of this brings us --inevitably, it seems to me--to the question of form. What is the form of the product?

If a novel, we might ask 'does it bear the characteristics of other works we regard as novels'? We should ask: does it faithfully carry out the basic structural hallmarks of the novel?

In what way does it adhere to the known format established by great novels of the past? In what way does it show progress or advancement of its own?

Ultimately, we can only compare a new work, a 'new classic' to predecessor works. Otherwise, anyone can claim anything. A fatuous artist might turn in a haiku and claim "it's a new form of novel I'm spearheading".

Someone else might come along, claiming to have written a new violin sonata but he uses a plastic kazoo and furthermore, he doesn't even know how to hold a violin.

So (I feel) we must close our ears to most of the 'noise factors' and turn to critical scholarship to help determine what a book, a poem, a sculpture, a symphony, or a movie really is.

One reader might prefer Gilgamesh. Another reader might prefer The Iliad. But both can likely agree that these are both epics.

Said another way: what does a structural analysis tell us that the object is, rather than what anyone claims about it?

A Classic book is one that is relevant to any age. It has a moral or basic content that has meaning that is timeless. Some "classics" are merely stories of historical significance in that they are unique in history as say the Iliad & Odyssey, the epic poems told by Homer or Robinson Crusoe as the first English novel even though Le Morte d'Arthur was published in 1485. Classic does not mean "old" as in antique, but it does mean that it will stand the test of time. A reliable list of accepted classics can be found on the College Board website published as "101 Great Books Recommended for College Bound Readers."

Handy article which provides an overview of 'classic' Hollywood. It complements what I posited above.

https://www.mises.org/library/how-ant...

The studio era was exemplary in generating consistently well-formed products, as other eras (such as in music or literature) were renowned for their various golden ages as well.

The point of the article is political, but nevermind that. The facts reported are straightforward and reliable.