Why are classics considered classics?

[Jessica]

I don't know how many of you enjoying reading the classics or whether or not you all thought they were boring when you had to read them in school..but I figured I'd ask the question..as to why you think these "classics" are considered to be classics? Why are they still popular today? What makes a classic? What classic is your favorite and why do you think it is still popular today?

[Lynnie]

I think a book becomes a classic when it has that staying power. Part of the staying power comes from popularity, but obviously that's not always so b/c a lot of classics weren't popular in their day and vice versa. The things I consider classic have staying power b/c they contain deep human truths. This makes them relatable no matter how long ago they were written.

[Jamie (The Perpetual Page-Turner), The Founding Bookworm]

I'd agree. I remember my favorite literature teacher talking about classics and how they stand the test of time because they contain deep universal truths.

I have to admit I've slacked on a lot of the classics.

I did love Frankenstein though. I'll have more thoughts on that later..I have to get to bed now!

[Lori]

I totally agree. The Classics all have applicable truths to our lives. Many of the real classics are really complicated books with thick and deep story lines. This discussability gives them staying power because you can always find something significant to focus on, which is probably different from what our parents focused on in school and what our kids will focus on when they read them.

I'm trying to work my way through the classics. And I generally shy away from brand new stuff, in favor of older texts (like at least 50 years old).

Have you ever randomly picked up a classic (or any book) and fell so in love with it and felt like it was speaking only to your soul, only to find out that other people read it and love it too?

[David]

That happened the first time I read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Talk about a classic! :)

[Irene]

most of the "classics" I haven't a clue why them and not others. I don't know why some authors endure on to torment new groups of school kids and some authors are forgotten.

Of the classics, I don't like many. I liked Romeo and Juliet. William Shakespeare had a good way of wording things and he put some humor in his plays too. But that doesn't mean I went on to read all the rest of them. He had a couple of other tragedies that were good too- Hamlet comes immediately to mind.
I also liked David Copperfield. Again, I really liked the way he phrased things. But, I tried several other Charles Dickens and didn't see it. That was the only one of his I truly liked.
I liked the basic stories of some of the greek tragedies- but actually sitting down and reading them was a pain.

[David]

I loved the Bronte sisters. I enjoyed most of Dickens (I finished Tale of Two Cities yesterday) but didn't really care for Great Expectations. Most of the "classics" we read in school were the new classics...100 Years of Solitude, Cry, The Beloved Country, Mrs. Mike, To Kill a Mockingbird, Fried Green Tomatoes, The Joy Luck Club, etc....that dealt with social aspects that we were studying.
I've had to fall in love with classics on my own. I've enjoyed Robert Louis Stevenson and Oscar Wilde. Once you get past the language barrier, many of them are actually quite enjoyable. I'm in the middle of Silas Marner and Grimm's Fairy Tales right now.

[Molly]

We were having this conversation the other day in one of my lit classes. We talked about it in terms of art and music as well.

I honestly don't get WHY some classics are considered these great books. I mean, who decides?! lol

[Jess]

Lori wrote: "Have you ever randomly picked up a classic (or any book) and fell so in love with it and felt like it was speaking only to your soul, only to find out that other people read it and love it too?"

That's kind of how I feel about John Steinbeck's East of Eden (which is kind of like a 'new' classic, if we can call it that). It speaks to so many elements of life that reach out and grab you, and it's one of the most powerful books I've ever read.

[Emily]

I think another part of why classics are classics is because they challenge societies current point of view. Though it doesn't seem like it now, many of the classics had shocking subject matters for the time! They made people question their beliefs/life style in a good way :)

[Jules]

I think the question of what makes a classic a classic is closely associated with "The Canon" of literature studies. I don't think it's got much to do with popularity - few of the classics have (had) a so very passionate following like, uh, Harry Potter or Twilight or whatever other contemporary "cult" (loosely used here) you may want to cite - with the exception of Shakespeare and Austen, probably.

I think what makes a classic is how well it incorporates aspects of its own time which may be discussed - whether shocking or not (Austen would hardly have ever been described as shocking) - and how well what the classic says is still applicable for many people years and years, or hundreds of years, later. Deep universal truths really says it best for me too, though of course especially non-academic reception may pick up on very different things than the contemporary audience of the author (Austen again, mainly read for the romance...). But who knows a Frances Burney now, even though she was a vastly popular author 200 years ago?

[Kristen]

I believe that classics say something to our souls, whether we honestly believe it or not. For example, Golding's Lord of the Flies is very deeply entrenched in a Hobbes' philosophy. I personally don't agree with it. However, it made me think, and made me question my views. But yes, I fall in love with some, East of Eden, for sure, and Les Miserables, and Shakespeare, but others, not so much. Frankenstein, did not agree with me. Don't know why, just didn't.

[Tahleen]

Kristen, I really liked Frankenstein (haven't read the others you mentioned yet), but I HATED Victor. A lot. That might have been why you didn't like it... a completely unlikable and whiny main character.

[Emily]

Classics to me are something that is sort of universally thought of to be worthwhile. Like, the book may not be all that good, but reading them will change you're view on something. In my opinion, a classic is something that changed the world at the time it was written. It opened new doors and exposed people to realities in the world that they didn't know existed. I like to think of classics as having real-life characters that are going through real-life struggles. A lot of popular books today are adventurous and all, but they're completely not plausible story-lines. Like, Dan Brown novels, for instance. Would one character just happen to get caught up in all these murderous historical events that happen within 2 days time where he has to save a terrible secret from getting out? No. But a classic deals with the real issues that many people face. Like, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath and how they talk about poverty. Or Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" where Holden questions and insults the ordinary way of thinking in society.
I think the reason classics get snubbed a lot by students is because their teachers force them to read and overanalyze every single word of the book, but when the book is just read simply for the book, the classics are usually some of the best.