Defining a Classic

[Terri Lynn]

Most of what has been published in the past few decades will, sadly, never be classics. Classics have a special depth and truth to them even if they take a light-hearted tone. We can feel it across the years. These days it seems that people are interested more in fame, fortune, and formula . They want to "be published" more than they want to write. Notice that none of the classics are trendy books. They are leaders, not followers.

[Alvin]

Terri wrote: "Most of what has been published in the past few decades will, sadly, never be classics. Classics have a special depth and truth to them even if they take a light-hearted tone. We can feel it across..."

100% Agree

[Nicolle]

Chris wrote: "On my first day of English class back in my Sophmore year (many years ago) my English teacher asked the class what we had read over the summer. No one answered. I vowed then and their that I woul..."

Not many books then....

[Lee]

Luke wrote: "I guess popularity must come into it, but i think the more you can relate; or even better WANT to relate with the protagonist the more your going to like a book. So a classic must be able to reach ..."

British readers should be familiar with this, others less so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Read

[Lee]

Uday wrote: "Here is a question about the test of time ....

Does a classic has an age? In another words, let us suppose, a book is considered as a classic after test of 100 years of publication, by all scholar..."

Interesting points.

[[deleted user]]

Thank you very much Chris!!!!

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Well the truth is that books that we consider classics today were dismissed and disparaged and firmly considered popular fiction, not worthy of consideration. Austen, Dickens, to name a few. So I wouldn't shrug off modern books so as unworthy of classic designation. Fifty years from now, you never know.

[[deleted user]]

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Well the truth is that books that we consider classics today were dismissed and disparaged and firmly considered popular fiction, not worthy of consideration. Austen, Dickens, to name a few. So I ..."

I absolutely agree!!!

[Nicolle]

Lee wrote: "Luke wrote: "I guess popularity must come into it, but i think the more you can relate; or even better WANT to relate with the protagonist the more your going to like a book. So a classic must be a..."

I am going to record this list and try to read all in the next say.... 5 years.

[Lee]

Nicolle wrote:I am going to record this list and try to read all in the next say.... 5 years.

I admire your ambition! I periodically check things off on it. I actually really wish they'd do it again now (tens years on). Partly because it really got everyone over here talking about books in a way that I haven't seen before or since and partly because I'd be curious about how some of the more recent books have fared since - particularly those associated with TV or film adaptations.

[Nicolle]

Lee wrote: "Nicolle wrote:I am going to record this list and try to read all in the next say.... 5 years.

I admire your ambition! I periodically check things off on it. I actually really wish they'd do it ..."

Yes, I really think movies and television effects people's opinions on books nowadays; some positively and some negatively.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

I love tv and movies, but movie/tv adaptations are basically one person's idea of a book's content. It's better to read the source material.

[Lee]

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I love tv and movies, but movie/tv adaptations are basically one person's idea of a book's content. It's better to read the source material."

Personally I have an aversion to adaps which manifests itself (with a few exceptions, such as LOTR) in such a way that if I read a book, I don't want to see the film but if I see the film first I often don't want to read the book.

[Fei Fei]

Lee wrote: "Luke wrote: "I guess popularity must come into it, but i think the more you can relate; or even better WANT to relate with the protagonist the more your going to like a book. So a classic must be a..."

I remember checking off that list upon graduating high school. Fully completed 35 of the top 100 at the time. Although, I've been noticing that a number of titles have been circulating in and out of the top 100 lists floating around the internet.

[Lee]

Fallensnow wrote: This version significantly differs from the wiki version: my link text

Trying to spot the differences sounds like a wonderful waste of time. Any hints?

[Fei Fei]

Lee wrote: "Fallensnow wrote: This version significantly differs from the wiki version: my link text

Trying to spot the differences sounds like a wonderful waste of time. Any hints?"

Wrong link. sorry! Can't find the old list I used. But I remember the Bible & Shakespeare being on there for one.

[Lee]

Fallensnow wrote: Wrong link. sorry! Can't find the old list I used. But I remember the Bible & Shakespeare being on there for one.

Ah, must have been something else then - the BBC one was all about people's favourite novels, which neither of those books are. Various other lists have existed over the years - The Guardian and The Times have both had lists of 'greatest ever books' or 'books you must read' for example, but the BBC one differed in a) being just novels and b) not being decided by a panels of scholars/critics. Instead it was an open vote for people to nominate their favourite book - from which a long list of 200 was drawn up, then a short list of 21, with further voting at each stage.

[[deleted user]]

I am working on the BBC list right now....I wondered how it was chosen but none the less I think that it was a very interesting list and I ended up reading books that I wouldn't have normally read!

[Lee]

Teri-lynn wrote: "I am working on the BBC list right now....I wondered how it was chosen but none the less I think that it was a very interesting list and I ended up reading books that I wouldn't have normally read!"

As far as I remember, it worked like this:

Beginning in 2001/2002 people could nominate their favourite book (definitions included such things as "the one you read again and again - that you always turn to when you're ill and in need of old friends, etc.") via the internet.

In 2002, some poor sod had the unenviable task of drawing up a long list of 200 books based on these votes. People then got to vote again, for their favourite of the longlisted books, also on the internet. This stage was promoted in book shops.

Finally, in 2003, a shortlist of 21 books was drawn up. This involved the introduction of a new rule - an author could only feature on the shortlist once (hence the clustering of J.K. Rowling books just beneath this threshold). Each of the shortlisted books had a half hour documentary filmed about them, with a different celebrity championing each book. The public then got a third chance to vote on their favourite book from this shortlist. This time via SMS and digital TV as well as the internet.

[Lee]

Teri-lynn wrote: "I am working on the BBC list right now....I wondered how it was chosen but none the less I think that it was a very interesting list and I ended up reading books that I wouldn't have normally read!"

As for books I wouldn't normally have read, I sought out the more interesting statistics in it, for example, the longest long-listed book (Not, in fact, War and Peace, but A Suitable Boy) and the newest book (Night Watch, then still not even published in paperback). I doubt I'd have been aware of either of these books otherwise and ended up very much enjoying them.

[Fei Fei]

Lee wrote: "Fallensnow wrote: Wrong link. sorry! Can't find the old list I used. But I remember the Bible & Shakespeare being on there for one.

Ah, must have been something else then - the BBC one was all ab..."

Here's a similar list to the one I remember using. It was floating around Facebook: HERE

Must have been the unofficial version. :P Must have had some severe differences from the "official" one since I've read more than 40/100 from that list.

[Lee]

Fallensnow wrote: "Lee wrote: "Fallensnow wrote: Wrong link. sorry! Can't find the old list I used. But I remember the Bible & Shakespeare being on there for one.

Ah, must have been something else then - the BBC on..."

Sorry, link doesn't work for some reason.

[Fei Fei]

Lee wrote: "Fallensnow wrote: "Lee wrote: "Fallensnow wrote: Wrong link. sorry! Can't find the old list I used. But I remember the Bible & Shakespeare being on there for one.

Ah, must have been something els..."

You reply indecently fast! Haha. I was fixing the link when you were posting. I believe it's working fine now :)

[Lee]

lol - That's what happens when you're at work on a Sunday, you look for any little excuse not to!

Interesting list, I wonder where it came from? Apart from the books that aren't novels, I notice several series have been amalgamated into one entry (eg. Narnia and Harry Potter, as well as LOTR, which was in the original one as well) and also some which weren't published at the time of the Big Read (eg. The Time Traveller's Wife). Since this is dated 2009, I wonder if they have done/are doing another version... Alternatively, as you suggest, someone on the web somewhere may have just confused a couple of different lists!

Apart from the Wikipedia and BBC sites, I also found this:
The "Big Read": Book of Books

[Lee]

Looking at that list a little more closely, I'm more inclined to believe that it's something somebody's made up. Surely an official list, from any organisation, wouldn't list "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" as two separate entries?

[Fei Fei]

Lee wrote: "Looking at that list a little more closely, I'm more inclined to believe that it's something somebody's made up. Surely and official list, from any organisation, wouldn't list "The Chronicles of N..."

Well, considering that this list has been circulating the social media networks, I'd say that's a definite possibility.

[Kate]

In defense of today's authors, it is the readers, not the writers, that determine the course of literature.
Today's society is in a hurry; they want fast moving
books. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance would probably not get published in today's market. Slow moving, deep, philosophical--where is the drama.

I write, and no matter how hard I try to write popular book, I am doomed to complex plots and characters, and endings that are not exactly roses and light. But I have read well and experienced deeply of life; I cannot write a book of lesser quality. My rewrites get longer, not shorter.

So remember when you are buying a book, you are actually making a choice about what publishers will choose to publish.

[Jim]

A classic is one that stands the test of time and is worth re-reading. A modern classic would seem an oxymoron. I think for any book published after 1970, it is too early to judge it as a classic. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee(1960), I would consider a classic, it is one of my favourite books. Margaret Atwood writes brilliantly and I am sure in time her books will be considered classics but I think it is too soon to judge them as such.

[Jimmy]

Jim wrote: "A classic is one that stands the test of time and is worth re-reading. A modern classic would seem an oxymoron. I think for any book published after 1970, it is too early to judge it as a classic. ..."

I would tend to agree, perhaps it is not for us to judge what should be considered a 'classic' from the 'modern period', but it is something for the next generation to consider.

[Dominique]

I agree with Shelia. I think 50 years of popularity earns the label of a classic. But I also call Harry Potter and more modern successes as classics, simply because they are likely to remain popular over the next 50 years. Also, I can't deny that my own opinion of the book has a little to do with it.

[Mat]

I'm not sure about this definitions.

Is it only a popularity (even after 100 years) that makes something earn name: "classic"?

I do not knew a lot of people who actually read 'The divine comedy' or 'Ulisses' by Joyce but who can tell that it's not a classic book? Everyone knew it and heard about it but actually it's just a few people who have read it.
So maybe it's not actually about reading but about knowing?

I'm thinking about books that are just popular or well known and don't bring you anything more than a good time spend on reading. It needs to have something more.

There is also thing like classics in some category for example Agatha Christie it's obviously classic in a criminal but if we named every her book classic because of it? Or just the best?

[[deleted user]]

I don't know if the Outsiders is considered a "classic" but it is one of my all time Favorite books, and I have it classified as a classic....

I have said this comment before, and I will say it again...I believe that some classics are a personal choice. I don't know what the term "classics" actually is, but if a book stays with you and you read it over and over and over (like I do with many books) then yes it will be a classic...

Charlotte's Web
Where the Red Fern Grows
These are classics to me...I have read them over and over and I have read them to my children...to me that is a classic!!

[Sam]

I agree Jess, a classic should stand the test of time, and have some impact on society.

[Nicolle]

Mark Twain has got it right abut many books!

[Fei Fei]

Jess wrote: "As Mark Twain puts it: A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.

Also, it should stand the test of time and leave some kind of impact on the literature wor..."

Ahaha! That's an apt description for many of them, for sure. :D

edit: found the quote on goodreads: "Classic' - a book which people praise and don't read."

[Alea]

For me a classic is a book lots of people know about, people from different countries and of different ages. They don't have to have read it, but everyone knows a bit about them. It could be newer books to, but when I think of classics I think of older books :P

[kwesi 章英狮]

Thanks Chris, I just saw you post while rereading the thread and sorry for the late reply. So far I only read 8 out of 80, it seems that I miss most of my life reading those books.

[Ashley Lewis]

It seems to me that classics push the envelope for their time. The authors tend to delve into the parts of life and society that no one else dares to speak of. Of course we all have an idea of what the classics are now . In 30 years the list will have grown. "The Hunger Games" for instance, is one story I suspect will have made its way into that list.

[Fei Fei]

Ad.lewis wrote: "It seems to me that classics push the envelope for their time. The authors tend to delve into the parts of life and society that no one else dares to speak of. Of course we all have an idea of what..."

I like your definition of classics; however, I'd have to disagree about The Hunger Games. Granted, I've yet to read the book so I may be off in my assumptions but based on the synopsis, the book seems like a regurgitated version of Battle Royale. I've also heard criticisms concerning the level of violence portrayed in the book as unnecessarily graphic and the characters & plotline defined as lacking depth, finesse and nuisance.

[Fei Fei]

I recently re-discovered a favorite poet of mine, Dorothy Parker. She has a wonderful range and sharp wit and I absolutely adored her as a teenager. This got me into thinking about poetry. How/Would you define collections of poetry as classics? If so, who would you include on the list? I wonder if there are any poetry lovers here :D

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Fallensnow, I do enjoy some poetry, but I don't read much of it, admittely. I like Emily Dickenson, Edgar Allen Foe, and "The Road Not Taken" by Frost in particular.

Good idea to have a thread to discuss poetry. I'll get one started.

[Neveen]

Classics are the books that stood and will stand against time; there are modern classics too like the books that won a Nobel prize.

[N. LaMar]

I will say that Classics to me are either ones that I'm told are classics by an elder and never read, or read and not getting why it's so great, or ones that I grew up reading and are Classics to me, regardless whether they are ever really labeled "Classics".

[Nicolle]

Well in college we learnt about the 'Literary Canon' which was established a while ago by some English folk, and comprised of a list of works which were 'worthy' and should be studied in schools and tings like that. Typically most of the authors were British White Males. There have been more lists comprised since (like 1001 books to read...) but I think who can say what book is a classic or not?? And what if you don't enjoy reading the classics, does it mean you are somehow intellectually incompetent?

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Very good point. I would like to see more literary acknowledgements incorporate a more multicultural view of the world.

I am not fond of intellectual snobbery, so I definitely don't think reading classics makes someone superior.

[Jonathan]

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I am not fond of intellectual snobbery, so I definitely don't think reading classics makes someone superior."

I don't believe anyone really is superior to another person. They might be more intelligent but still there will be ways another person is greater than them. I think reading classics just means that someone has a taste for that kind of writing. Myself I've been reading the classics more to gain an appreciation of their beautiful language.

[[deleted user]]

I agree Danielle...

[Angie]

I am about to read Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez. It was written in 1985. I'm not sure whether it is a classic or not. However, my library classified it as a classic and Penguin books call it a modern classic, and people on GR who have read it have labelled it as a classic. My decision? I'm going to call it a classic.
In making my decision, I came across this website. It may be of interest to some of you...
www.penguinclassics.com.au

[Book Concierge]

Angie wrote: "I am about to read Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez. It was written in 1985. I'm not sure whether it is a classic or not. However, my library classif..."

I think the publishing industry has blurred the line between literary fiction and classics (probably in a move to sell more books). Love in the Time of Cholera is definitely literary fiction, but in my opinion (for what that's worth - LOL), it is not a classic - even if Penguin has published it as one. It's just too new. But then I tend to follow the 100 year rule, although I've recently acquiesced to popular demand to lower that threshhold to 50 years.

By the way, one of my favorite quotes comes from another Marquez novel One Hundred Years of Solitude - "The world really must be all f**ked up," he said, "when men travel first class and literature goes as freight."

[The Pirate Ghost]

I think a wise man once said, "I can't describe what porn is like, but I know it when I see it." (or something like that.)

I'd say, "I can't define a classic, but I know one when I read it."

For me, a classic resonates. Resonate- that's what happens when an opera singer hits a high C and a glass shatters. It's what happens when a baseball player swings a bat and feels the impact with the ball sting his hands. It's like a golf swing. Swing the club wrong and when you strike the ball, you'll feel it in your arms down to your toes. Swing the club right and you'll never feel it when you hit the ball, just hear it and ...oh, will the ball fly!

I don't think that there is a number of years a book has to wait before it becomes "classic" and I'm sure it's not a process like becoming a saint. I know a book is, or should be annointed as "a classic" when it hits a theme or message that resonates and can be seen in more than one aspect of our world.

1984, I don't know about you, but, I don't go a week without hearing some reference to "big Brother." I wasn't able to read it without thinking about the Iraq and Afgahn wars, and the conclusion I came to was that it was actually about the lives and battles of European Proles (Democratic Socialists) who raced into spay to fight in the Spanish Civil war, and, the insane battle over the truth of what happened after the war.

1984 is like a stone thrown in a placid pond. Ripples go out in all directions and touch all manner of things in some way or another.

Alex Huxley's "Brave New World," Are we not feeling his warning in our hearts when it comes to genetics, cloning, stem cells? So many ethical questions about what should and what should not be done?

Some works resonate in different ways. Many people mistakenly credit Tolkien for "creating" the fantasy Genre. I beg to differ with them, however, hasn't his vision of Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, Goblins and Humans become an unwritten, unvoted on standard that most works inevitably get compared to (Regardless of how many thousands of years they've been written about or worked into stories before Tolkein?).

So, I'd say, classics have to Resonate... a book a can do that before the ink dries, or, it may have to ferment like a fine wine for years before it comes into it's own glory (Like Mobey Dick by Herman Mellville)

But that's my take on it. I can't define what a classic is, but I know it when I read it. It "resonates" with me.