What makes a classic a classic?

[Tammy]

Hmmm...let's think about who decides which books are classics. I imagine we are reading Shakespeare, Austen, Dumas, Flaubert, Dickens, Faulkner, Hemingway, Joyce, etc. because they have been passed down through the generations by educators and literary experts. Think about what was assigned to you to read in HS and college lit classes. The books were chosen for many of the reasons that have been listed above, such as: they reflect the time in which they were written, they are exceptionally well written, they cover universal themes of the human condition, and they can be studied. I pulled up some semi current Yale lectures on Modern Lit since 1945. Some of the books that they covered in that course were: Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor, The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon, Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, Lost in the Fun House by John Barth, Lolita by Nabokov, Black Boy by Richard Wright, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, and several others. In the intro these books were described by the professor as some of the most compelling novels written in just over the last half century. I've read 5 of those books and I would say that they are as thought provoking, insightful, and as beautifully crafted as any of the moldy oldies (which I do love). I keep my eyes peeled to what the experts are checking out. Isn't it nicer to be in the know before everybody else.

A second thought...I think there are at least two types of classics...the heart string/popular classics and the literary classics. I would put children's lit (Roald Dahl, EB White) and popular mysteries (Doyle, Christie) into the former category. I would put Flaubert, Joyce and Faulkner into the latter. The popular classics are easier to read and tend to have universal themes that most readers relate to. I believe that books like the Harry Potter series and The Book Thief (and maybe even Stephen King's The Stand) will eventually fall into this category. The literary classics have a lot of the same themes, but require more study and probably attract serious readers who dig a challenge. Cormac McCarthy, Toni Morrison, and Kurt Vonnegut really stand out to me in a big way.

[Loretta]

Mark wrote: "I agree with Loretta. I like old standards too. - )
Don Quixote, Ulysses, The Brothers Karamazov."

Thank you Mark...

[Francisca]

Tammy, I really like your distinction between the “popular” classics and the literary classics :)

[Loretta]

Gini wrote: "Classic books. Wonder if the sales figures have more impact than before? Are more people reading now? And does the ordinary consumer have more input in the process than before? Maybe so. Or will it..."

Don't ever apologize Gini for expressing your opinions which obviously generated a tremendous discussion!

[Tammy]

Francisca wrote: "Tammy, I really like your distinction between the “popular” classics and the literary classics :)"

Thanks, Gini. Your comment got me thinking about the number of readers now vs earlier times. Lots of good things to think about in this discussion!

[Sara, New School Classics]

There are some modern books that I think deserve to be classics. Whether that will happen, of course, is harder to tell.

Wallace Stegner's Angle of Repose and Crossing to Safety
Marilynne RobinsonHome
Amor Towles' A Gentleman in Moscow

All have something important to say...which is part of what makes a true classic for me.

[Gini]

Tammy wrote: "Francisca wrote: "Tammy, I really like your distinction between the “popular” classics and the literary classics :)"

Thanks, Gini. Your comment got me thinking about the number of readers now vs e..."

You are welcome. And your comment sent me to the global access to books that is available now. And translations that could be done to open even more works. I want to know what is classic to someone from China or India or Iran for example.

[Shirley (stampartiste)]

I also agree that Tammy has hit upon a unique classification of books, the literary classics that are universally recognized as Classics and the popular classics that have not yet passed the test of time. Among the latter, I agree with Sara on Amor Towles' A Gentleman in Moscow. As I was reading this book, I was transported by his gracious and lyrical style. I felt that this must surely one day become a classic. Which brings me to my next point:

Tammy also pointed out that Classics have been passed down through the generations by educators and literary experts, which suggests that many of our "Classics" may simply be so because of their designation by a relatively small group of people. Now, with the advent of the Internet and the sharing of information on a global scale, I'm wondering if readers will have more of an input into which books will be designated as Classics (books that were previously overlooked or rejected by the literary elite). I am thankful that the Internet has increased our knowledge of literature in other countries. We are so much more the richer for this.

[Tammy]

Ack! You guys are smart. I love Gini's thoughts on what is considered a classic in other parts of the world. I'm about to fall down a wormhole! Please let me know if you find anything interesting Gini.

Stampartiste...you raise some interesting points about access to information and the power of the internet critic. I think we'll see a rise in what I call the popular classics, but literary classics will still have their allure for the academics.

Now I will have to put A Gentleman in Moscow on my list. Thanks for the tip Sara.

[Mark]

The allure of the great books reaches way beyond the classroom. And just as popular books can sometimes be exceptional, so to, exceptional books can sometimes be popular. Literary classics are for everyone. - )

[Angie]

First off all, to the question as to what makes a book a classic, I think it has less to do with the age of the book and more to do with the contribution made by the book. I've encountered 100-year-old books that are poorly written and felt hollow. Yet they're defined as classics because they're old or because they were written by someone who wrote another book that is a genuine classic.

On the other hand, I've encountered books written in the 1980s that are 100% deserving of the label classic.

For me, I think it has a lot to do with what the book reveals about the era in which it was written. Or what it challenges. In some cases, it's about form--maybe the book's narrative structure adds something to the overall narrative of literature itself. Maybe the book has characters that endure over time or deals with themes that are timeless and does it in a way that feels organic and alive years after it is first written. In short, they leave an echo.

Also, to be clear, I think that classics can be fiction, non-fiction, plays, poetry, genre fiction, children's fiction, and even graphic novels. I get irritated when people give genre books the stink eye and dismiss them as somehow inferior. Agatha Christie wrote mystery novels, and I've seen people dismiss her because it's not "good literature." I heartily disagree. Books like And Then There Were None are absolutely classics.

(Boy, this turned into more of a rant than I intended.)

Tammy wrote: "So now I'm curios! Let's try to discuss modern/future classics that we think will stand the test of time. List 5 books from 1960 th 2000 that you think people will still be reading in 100 years. Ma..."

I'm going to avoid obvious things like To Kill a Mockingbird and Slaughterhouse-Five, because I think they're pretty obviously classics.

1. The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro (1980s)
2. The Color Purple by Alice Walker (1980s)
3. Buried Child by Sam Shepard (1970s)
4. The Stand by Stephen King (1970s)
5. The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien (1990s)

I would also probably put the Harry Potter series up there as one that will be read 100 years from now. There are others that I could list, but since you asked for five (and I've already cheated and given more than five), I'll leave it at the ones I've listed.

What do they all have in common? Well, I could point to awards.
All five are award winners/award-winning authors. But that's not enough. All of them are well-written. That's not enough either. For me, what tips the scale is that all of them look at the human experience in a way that resonates and left, in my mind, a permanent mark on the narrative world.

Well, I'm tired and rambling. Hope some of that made sense.

[Zoe]

One thing that also makes it hard to predict classics the way some books are essentially 'dug up' centuries later. Aphra Behn was thought uncouth by the Victorians, but is now included in classic writers of the 1600s. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl was republished in the 70s I think, with the authors real name - it had been really obscure before that.

It is the same with Lady Audley's Secret and The Book of the City of Ladies. They have only recently been brought out of complete obscurity.

[Tammy]

Angie wrote: "First off all, to the question as to what makes a book a classic, I think it has less to do with the age of the book and more to do with the contribution made by the book. I've encountered 100-year..."

Angie, no shade being thrown by me on the mystery genre, or any other genre...well, I might throw some zingers about romance novels, but that is about it! All of the popular fiction writers I mentioned are well deserving of their status. Popular Classics are just that...beloved by the majority of readers. No shame there at all. Also, I'm so glad you mentioned The Things They Carried. I read it a month ago and I would 100% back it as a future classic. I had one friend rate it as a 1 Star, and another gave it a 3. For me it was a full out 5 stars and I couldn't believe that 1 Star rating from my friend. I almost wrote to her about it!

Mark wrote: "The allure of the great books reaches way beyond the classroom. And just as popular books can sometimes be exceptional, so to, exceptional books can sometimes be popular. Literary classics are for ..."

I totally agree with you, Mark. Literary classics are for everybody, but they require more study and thought than popular classics. If a book requires no further explanation, no volumes plumbing its depths, no investigation into symbolism, allusion, etc., then it is probably a popular classic. They are wonderful books that tend to have universal appeal. And they ARE well written, and they do speak to the human condition, and they make us laugh and cry. But we don't need help understanding them. They are great, but they aren't going to make you pull your hair out trying to understand them. I'll use the recent Walden discussion as an example. That book triggered a great debate. Love it or hate it, the book made people think and feel one way, or another...deeply. I would say that Walden would therefore be classified as a literary classic and that it should and can be studied. Let's consider Animal Farm. It is a strange little book about animals behaving badly. If we aren't taught that it is an allegory about the Russian revolution, then it remains just an odd book about talking animals. If we study it, it becomes so much more.

The majority of readers do not want to study a book and break it down. They want only to enjoy it, and that is totally understandable and reasonable. That is why Ulysses has almost 89,000 reviews and The Sorcerer's Stone has over 5 million reviews.

[Mark]

Hi Tammy - Thank you for your support. Most, if not all of the supplementary materials you've mentioned to help with understanding were designed to assist students. But once you have left school you no longer have to study a book, you can just read it for fun.
I picked up and tried to read Walden any number of times, and put it down unfinished. The book demanded an attention, close reading, that I didn't feel compelled to exert. It was too philosophical, not for me. Twenty years later I tried again. It was a different book. I was in a different place, and the book spoke to me much more clearly. Enough so that I could enjoy it. I liked the way Thoreau constructed his sentences, and I found meaning in what he had to say. It was refreshing: like splashing your face with water after some vigorous, heated exertion.
My experience with Ulysses was different. I was 37 the first time I read it. And I didn't know anything about the author or the book other than it had a reputation for being difficult! And it is difficult, but when difficult became a negative thing rather than a desirable thing alludes me. So I read it, with the help of my dictionary, and I loved it. It is a warm and touching love story, told in a most magical way. Since then I have re-read it, just for fun, many times. I have also, over the years delved into the myriad world of Joyce commentary and exegesis; most of which is much harder to understand than the book itself.
I think as we grow as readers, after school, and allow our interests to follow their own path our judgements about certain difficult books may change. - )

[Tammy]

I think we are saying the same thing. When I say study, you might say revisit or close reading. It is well over 20 years since I've sat in a classroom, but I approach a challenging book with great curiosity and excitement. Where we differ might only be in the significance that schools/experts have over what we choose to read. I wonder...what if the experts had never said that Ulysses was a challenging yet worthwhile book? Would you even know about it?

I can totally relate to your description of reading Walden (which I haven't read, but will, darn it, I will). Old Tammy has more life experience and patience than young Tammy ever did. And thank you for putting up with my blah blahing!

[Mark]

I read Ulysses for the first time because my girlfriend recommended it. She read it because of article (non-academic) she read in a magazine. Based on my own experiences I would say that 95% of what has been written about Ulysses, both lay and professional, is not true, and has done much more harm than good. Most academics don't like Ulysses. They may teach it, but that doesn't mean they either like it or understand it.
I used to live about seven miles from Walden Pond. It is beautiful and serene.
I like your blah! - )

[Tammy]

If only Ulysses were on my 2017 list! I could start it now. I have read Portrait and plan to read Dubliners this month. So I'm prepping, acclimating, dipping my toes into Joyce prior to diving into his Ulysses.

[Mark]

I am trying to get a Dubliners reading going, right now, over at the club Our Classical Journey. It might be fun! - )
My advice, don't think about Ulysses at all and let the book explain itself when the time comes. It's going to be great! - )
(Try in you spare time to read the opening page of some of the 18 chapters. Each is unique and very telling!)

[Tammy]

I'll start Dubliners as soon as I finish The Reivers, Vanishing Point, and Zelda: A Biography. I should finish them over the next two days. I'm enjoying all three of them. Looking forward to the discussions!

[Mark]

Cool!The Reivers was my first Faulkner. Years ago. I've read many more since. Yes. I'm looking forward too! - )

[PinkieBrown]

Here are some 1-star comments written about classic books that I found on a site called bustle.com (not a site I know otherwise, I must admit);


1'Jane Eyre’ by Charlotte Brontë

"Ugh...just because it was written yonks ago by a depressed girl living on the Yorkshire Moors does not mean that it is good. What makes a classic book: The quality of the writing or the passage of time? I would rather slowly bite poke my eyes out with my Kindle than to read this again. Or to read anything else by ANY of the Bronte sisters."

2'Pride and Prejudice' by Jane Austen

"I really don't get it why the entire female population is so enraptured with this book. Mr Darcy was so unbearably snooty and and the bennett sisters were no better than cows except for elizabeth who was a mad cow."

3'Ulysses' by James Joyce

"This is a tough book to read unless you understand several languages and are on LSD. I may have thirty or forty more years to live so maybe I'll get through it."

4'The Catcher in the Rye' by J.D. Salinger

"I would rather read the dictionary."

5'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' by J.K. Rowling

"Got it for my grandson to please him, but personally, I DO NOT agree with Harry Potter books. Not for the minds of young people today!"

6'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Atwood

"It was just some ramblings written down by a crazy woman, with some sex in the middle."

7'The Little Prince' by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

"Would I get into trouble if I strangled Little Prince and his syrupy philosophy. The flower I have already trampled."

8'Beloved' by Toni Morrison

"You know how your supposed to feel all deep and intelligent after you read classic book. Nope didn't happen."

9'The Great Gatsby' by F. Scott Fitzgerald

"Weird plotless story whose main character has no life but to be the gateway to that of others. Everyone cheats on everyone and in the end nobody ends up happy and the audience doesn't even end up with a moral to hold on to and justify they waste of time and money they just spent."

10'A Wrinkle in Time' by Madeleine L'Engle

"The book tried WAY to hard to shove English, Math, Science, Foreign Languages...etc down my throat."

11'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' by Lewis Carroll

"Going into this I knew that it would be weird, I just didn't expect it to be that weird."

12'The Color Purple' by Alice Walker

"Someone previously said this should be titled 'The Color Blue' well I agree. Alice Walker is trying to hard. Honestly she should have been taking care of her daughter, Rebecca Walker, instead of writing this misandrist this book"

13'The Hobbit' by J.R.R. Tolkien

"Biblo use your brain, I don't care if you have to build a plane, blimp, submarine or whatever. But really, don't you have a better way of transportation?"

14'1984' by George Orwell

"Attempting to read this book is worse than watching the grass grow. At least the grass will become something you enjoy."

15'Othello' by William Shakespeare

"not shakespeare's finest theatrical production... honestly, the whole plot just didn't make sense. Get your shit together Othello."

16'A Christmas Carol' by Charles Dickens

"Twee, grisly and fawning, the greatest turkey ever told."

17'The Odyssey' by Homer

"He killed innocent people , cheated on his wife, and ate his friends. I believe that says it all about who Odysseus really is."

~
I’m using these quotes as a kick off point to discuss an aspect of classic literature; which in terms defined by Italo Calvino in his essay “Why read the classics?” says;

“ ‘Your’ classic is a book to which you cannot remain indifferent and which helps you define yourself in relation or even in opposition to it.”

, which to me says that you will take it personally. The reviews above all share the sense that the readers were annoyed by the book but didn’t get to the bottom of why they were annoyed.

The value of the classic over your common or garden variety book is it has established the right; through rigourous discussion over the decades, to have something to say; which is a nebulous phrase but it allows any book to say anything in any way it wants.

I spent a fair time writing film reviews. Opinions on films almost invariably run the entire gamut from unreasonable love to equally irrational hate and it ends up making the “I hated it/liked it/loved it” review, without any explanation of the basis of the emotion, empty of substance but also gratjngly self-important; as in “I hated this, and that, as far as I’m concerned, defines this film.” Fair enough. A film is a fairly lightweight substrate, demands little attention and generally isn’t particularly intellectually straining; so it invites twitter type responses. No need to slam that attitude too hard but equally no need to stand by any opinion so hard as to be offended if the opinion is questioned.

I like the idea that a classic by dint of the abrasive, almost evolutionary process of the scrutiny brought to bear on them- university study, film versions, the boredom of legions of teenage children across the ages has passed some point above which it escapes the sort of two second thought process as exampled in the reviews above. If you don’t like a classic so what? It’s an immovable object and it puts into stark contrast how very un-irresistible one’s opinion is. I don’t mind thinking of a classic as a brick wall needing scaling. Reading one makes you better at scaling the wall of the next, in my experience.

Nobody ever said reading a classic was easy and there’s a pleasing assumption that if you want it easy you wouldn’t be here; but please forgive even the implication of superior smugness that goes with the discussion in these terms. If you just wanted entertaining you could get it easier elsewhere (I do, you can do more than one thing after all). I have to admit that whether I like or dislike one of these books seems irrelevant and I like that this frees me from bothering to mention it in reviews- there’s more important things to talk about, chiefly, how does it makes me feel? Who does this make me? For instance, the events of Beloved make me feel the horrors of slavery in ways beyond my ability to imagine or even my normal desire to imagine.

No. I wondered about taking a course specifically in literature to complement reading classics but I thought that these books were entirely capable of teaching me that which I wished to learn and meant I wouldn’t have to involve a third party to tell me what I should know; just me and a set of books in conversation. This is their unique selling point. There should be no hubris to obfuscate the lessons they can provide and in the manner of one character from one classic I feel myself ever so humble in the face of this opportunity. To learn.