Defining a Classic

[Angie]

I like your take on it, Hugh. I'll read Love in the Time of Cholera and decide whether it 'resonates' with me. I also have a Polish children's classic to read, King Matt the First (1923). Has anyone heard of it?

[[deleted user]]

I am a newcomer to this group, so forgive me if these thoughts are repititions in this thread but I did some investigation on this topic and found some interesting ideas: According to Britanica encyclopedia, literature of any language is a classic if it is written in a period noted for excellence and enduring quality. Greece and Rome seem to be the first classic periods-
Greece 500-320 BC, Rome 70BC-18AD, France 2nd half of 17th century and
England 1660-1714 AD. Other definitions seem to agree that a classic is handed down thru generations but how many years make up a generation is debated and I found quotes between 25 - 80 years depending upon if you view a generation as being the average life span of people or the average time until childbirth. No one seems to say how many generation something should span to be considered classic either.

[Michael]

I will not elaborate on my opinion as it has been touched on several times already in this thread but I thought I would point out a website that might help people find their own personal classics based on whatever criteria they find relevant.

http://thegreatestbooks.org/

It's a meta-list combining a plethora of other "best of" and "classic" lists compiled by numerous sources (The Guardian, BBC, TIME, etc). You can either look at the composite or just whatever specific book list you want (historical fiction classics, etc). Also, if you are a "generation" type you can also filter out based on year. Two generation rule? Set it to everything pre-1972 and it'll spit out the top 200 composite list without anything later than that.

Just thought someone mind find it valuable. :)

[Melissa Jeanette]

Mike wrote: "I will not elaborate on my opinion as it has been touched on several times already in this thread but I thought I would point out a website that might help people find their own personal classics b..."

That's fantastic thanks! I love it!

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Hugh, I like your resonate litmus test. That works for me. There are so called classics that did nothing for me, and there are books few others would deem a classic that are classic to me because they 'resonate' with me.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Thanks for the link, Mike.

[The Pirate Ghost]

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Hugh, I like your resonate litmus test. That works for me. There are so called classics that did nothing for me, and there are books few others would deem a classic that are classic to me because ..."

Thank you Lady D. I guess it's listening for the "Heart" of a work. (If that makes sense without being to preachy.)

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

It does.

[The Pirate Ghost]

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "It does."

Thank you Lady D. (:-{D>

You know, Robert Crais wonderful Joe Pike character kind of said best when he talked about "Seeing someone" for what they really are. "He doesn't see you." ...hmm.. oh well, I thought there was a segway to conteporary there...

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Yeah, I liked that dynamic to Pike's relationship with Larkin.

[Jonathan]

I fully agree with the idea of resonating. A classic to me isn't based on whether people name it as such. It has that unique feel to it. There are books written twenty or even ten years ago that will likely be classics in the future because of those qualities. In a way I have heard it described as: timeless.

Take for instance 1984. Although we know that 1984 didn't turn out as Orwell suggested his ideas remain present today and are still applicable.

The Chronicles of Narnia are slightly dated in their phrasing yet the ideas contained within remain today. And they are still highly popular.

Pride and Prejudice is in effect an immortal tale too because it can be turned into even a Bollywood setting and still remain relevant.

A Christmas Carol and many of Charles Dickens' works remain popular and relevant today.

Shakespeare remains relevant and even understandable. And what's more still popular even centuries after he wrote.

I could go on about Agatha Christie, H.G.Wells, Jules Verne and countless others but I guess you get the point.

What I like to describe it as is that true classics contain ideas that are relevant for the human condition regardless of era. They are in essence sort of immortal. You may forget the story but the ideas remain with you.

[The Pirate Ghost]

Jonathan, I like your idea of a classic contiainging "Ideas that are relevant to the Human condition regardlesss of era."

In fact, if I were to be so bold as to combine the ideas for a shorter definition, it would go something like this.

True Classics contain ideas that are relevant for the human conditoin and resonate in a multitude of different ways regardless of the era they were written in or about.

Anyway, I agree with you. Thanks.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Very good point, Jonathan.

[Jonathan]

Hugh The Curmudgeon wrote: "Jonathan, I like your idea of a classic contiainging "Ideas that are relevant to the Human condition regardlesss of era."

In fact, if I were to be so bold as to combine the ideas for a shorter..."

You just had such a strong point that reminded me of something I had heard and felt. Classics are in many ways timeless...

Love your definition. We should have that displayed as a motto.

[Nicolle]

Done. :)

[The Pirate Ghost]

(Gives Johanthan the metaphorical "high five" and "fist bump.")

Yeah, we bad, uh-huh....bad in a good way I mean.

[Jonathan]

Hugh The Curmudgeon wrote: "(Gives Johanthan the metaphorical "high five" and "fist bump.")

Yeah, we bad, uh-huh....bad in a good way I mean."

And that's how we roll haha!

[The Pirate Ghost]

Uh-huh!

[Parikhit]

Took me a while reading and searhing for a perfect definition for a classic. In most of the cases, it is the publishing house that tag books as classics. Personally timeless literature from the past years would qualify as far as I am concerned.

[[deleted user]]

Nicolle wrote: "How do you personally define something as a classic?

When it was written?
Because someone told you it was?
The author it was written by?"

Nicolle wrote: "How do you personally define something as a classic?

When it was written?
Because someone told you it was?
The author it was written by?"

I would define a classic as a book that has continued to be read and receive praise after more than 50 years. The book would have to have held importance either when it was written or shortly after.

[Nicolle]

What about if it held importance when it was written and shortly after, but has no relevence today what so ever...would you and could you still call it a classic? Could you truly enjoy it without having to research the context?

[[deleted user]]

Hm...very good point. I guess you wouldn't be able to enjoy it. However, some classics are very specific to their times. The book should contain information that most people in that time could understand. I guess a classic could also kind of serve as a history book(novel). It should also be self explanatory, though.

[Fei Fei]

Hugh The Curmudgeon wrote: "True Classics contain ideas that are relevant for the human conditoin and resonate in a multitude of different ways regardless of the era they were written in or about."

Wonderful definition. Well done, Hugh and Jonathan.

[midnightfaerie]

I'm new to this group and find this topic extremely interesting, so much so that I've created a website dedicated to it and am in the process of reading as many classics as I can. Eventually I'd like to write a book about it. I think the previous definition is great, but doesn't encompass everything. I've also done a lot of research and the long and short of it that I've found is that there is no definitive definition in the literary world for what a classic is. I've often wondered why they don't create an academy like they do for the academy awards/oscars, and allow a group of peers to vote on them. Just a thought.

[The Pirate Ghost]

Janine wrote: "I'm new to this group and find this topic extremely interesting, so much so that I've created a website dedicated to it and am in the process of reading as many classics as I can. Eventually I'd l..."

Where's your website?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your looking for criteria to be met before a book can be determined to be a classic?

To me that seems to be the next level of depth and organizatoin. The definition that Johnathan and I came up with is more a mission statement. (So to speak).

That's a tough one because when one proposes criteria, that includes some work that might not be desirable by some people and excludes some that everybody likes.

For example, I think Ender's Game has everything needed to be a classic, but the guy is still alive writing novels and books and such (Orson Scott Card) and his work was only published in 1985 in it's long book form. If the criteria was "it has to be so old" that might exclude this one, or, "the author needs to bed dead or not writing anymore" this would be excluded.

Now for me, I think this will stand up whenever eligible so i don't call it a classic yet, but I can see some people throwing things a whoever announces criteria in Science Fiction Books that exclude it.

So where do we draw the line? (or should we?) Criteria might be more like ...Pirate Laws.. what's the line? "Well, their more like guidelines than rules anyway."

[Jimmy]

Janine wrote: "...there is no definitive definition in the literary world for what a classic is...."

Good job too!! Takes all the fun out of discussing it if there was. Make up your own rules and defy the world that your definition isn't as valid as thiers! Could even suggest that it is not best to rely on 'mob rule' in determining what is a classic; as Hugh notes it may alienate certain books/people, and popular views do change - take Moby Dick as a "classic" example...

[☯Emily , moderator]

Jimmy wrote: "Janine wrote: "...there is no definitive definition in the literary world for what a classic is...."

Good job too!! Takes all the fun out of discussing it if there was. Make up your own rules ..."

I still don't consider Moby-Dick a classic!

[midnightfaerie]

Oh, I hope I didn't offend! You're mission statement was beautiful and I completely agree with it as a mission statement. I was only saying, like Jimmy stated, it's probably good there is no definite criteria for what a classic is, it would take all the fun out of it. I just like the idea of defining the criteria out of a loose set of rules. (loose because again, who am I to say?) It does seem there are some things that ppl agree on, say, longevity, as being a characteristic of a classic. I just find the whole discussion fascinating. And here's my site, but keep in mind, my list of 10, where I state that a book has to have at least 2 of these characteristics to be a classic, is just the beginning. I've only started really reading classics with these thoughts in mind about a year ago, so I think I still have quite a few "classics" to read before I can have some more definitive thoughts.

www.ClassicsDefined.com

[Jimmy]

Emily wrote: "I still don't consider Moby-Dick a classic!"

Yeay! - you don't know how much I was hoping to provoke exactly that response Emily! Should have known I could rely on you. Kinda proves my point though.

I really like your web-site Janine, thought-provoking listings you have there. Could add Ulysses to your banned listing. :)

[midnightfaerie]

Thanks Jimmy! I'll definitely add it! Always looking for books on my list that I've missed!

[midnightfaerie]

p.s. I didn't "get" moby dick either. definitely not one of my favorites!

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Your website is really nice, Janine!

[Jonathan]

So what would be your definition of a classic Janine? I noticed for instance on your website it appears you don't class The Lord of the Rings as classic or War and Peace. For me it's not something one can define. A book simply has an intangible feel as to whether it is classic or not.

[midnightfaerie]

Thanks Lady Danielle!


Jonathan,
well, on my page, Defining A Classic I list my 10 characteristics of a Classic, and if a book has at least two of these items, I consider it a classic. Keep in mind, some of my reveiws, like War and Peace, were read and written before I came up with the list, which was just recently. I've been reading classics for a year (sounds like a long time, but I didn't get as many done as I would have liked) And I feel like I've only just begun my research. It took me a year to come up with my list, which I still plan on honing and changing and clarifying somewhat as I go. I just had to start somewhere. And a lot of the items on the list were common thoughts amoung many people on blogs such as this, trying to define a classic. Again, it's only an opinion, but, much like arguing politics, I'm trying to develop a more concrete argument for why I believe or don't believe a book should be a classic. So, it's still in it's infancy stages. :) I appreciate all the feedback though. Feel free to subscribe to the list or subscribe to my feeds on facebook and argue with me how wrong I am about certain books. Who knows, I might just change my mind. :)

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Janine, I think that's a good list. I like that you don't expect all classics to meet all the criteria you listed.

[midnightfaerie]

Thanks Lady Danielle. I appreciate the feedback. I haven't had a lot so far. Usually my readers just want to know what's good or not. It took me quite a while to come up with the list. I think it's a good start anyway. :)

[Melissa Jeanette]

Janine wrote: "well, on my page, Defining A Classic I list my 10 characteristics of a Classic, and if a book has at least two of these items, I consider it a classic. Keep in..."


I like your webpage Janine. It's an intriguing idea to define what is a classic as you go along. I like that it gives an interesting question to ponder with each classic we read. So far my only definition for classics have been because someone said so. lol. I like your approach better. :)

[Jonathan]

Ah I was trying to find some criteria on your website. Which is great. Very nice and accessible actually.

What do you mean by number 5, new style of writing? Many classics I've found tend to be a similar style of writing with a unique touch by their particular writer. Again I'm not trying to pick holes. I like your reasoning I'm just curious. I think you really have a great set of definitions there which are far more concrete than many of us would say.

Again for me I would have my classics be three things: 1. there has to be something deeper to them, something that resonates and can teach lessons. 2. They have to be of a high quality of writing and a style that's more often more flowery and embellished than current writing styles. 3. Stands the test of time.

For instance I wouldn't yet class Harry Potter as a classic. It hasn't inspired genres like Lord of the Rings or Pride and Prejudice and has yet to stand the test of time. I have no doubt it will stand the test of time however. But I couldn't class it as one yet until perhaps another forty years.

I really like how you list what you think are classics and are not. Is there a place where you list all the books called classics and then write why they are or are not? I notice you write reviews but I think it would be great to see it all laid out how it doesn't fit certain rules.

[midnightfaerie]

Yes! Thank you so much for the wonderful critiques! I've been trying to get more feedback out of ppl but it's like pulling teeth.
so, to answer your questions, #5. Example would be Tess of the D'Ubervilles, Hardy used a type of descriptive writing that was called panoramic detailing (if I remember correctly), where he described scenes from far away and then panned in, describing as he went. Iambic Pantameter would be another style/type of writing. And also, it might not be "new" for that author, but for example, I gave Shakespeare #5 because although he wasn't the first to write that way, he had a good hand in making it popular.
And please, pick holes.
As for your characteristics.
1. deeper - to me is very subjective, I think I'd put that under my #9 for underlying themes.
2. quality of writing probably goes under #4 for unique style of writing. but i'm not sure on this one, it's something i'll have to think about.
3. test of time, yes, definitely.

As for HP, I think he will stand the test of time, it's inspired lots of people, it definitely has the magic factor and it's loved by the masses.

if your saying maybe in 40 yrs, are you saying that the longevity has to be proven? if so, i'm not sure i agree, but it's worth discussing!

as for list all the classics and which categories they fall under, is a brilliant idea! I will definitely plan on adding it! I used to be a windows developer (not a lot of web programming, but I can do it), so i'll have to look at my layout and do some planning. it'll take a bit. I quit last year to be a stay at home mom. i currently have a 4 yr old and 18 month old twins, so i'm busy!!!! :) But this is something I love to do, so I'm going to start working on it. Thanks again everyone for the comments!

Also, working on making the lists sortable by book title as well as author. especially as my lists are getting long!

Charactaristics of a Classic

[Jonathan]

I would say that longevity has to be proven yes. For instance the Chronicles of Narnia remain popular despite having been published 40 years ago. Lord of the Rings is the same. Now not everyone likes Lord of the Rings now in the same way that people like Harry Potter but I still class it as a classic according to your system because:

1. Longevity. 50 plus years of remaining popular.
2. Magic factor - subjective I think in itself as an idea. But on the whole as most people are pulled into the story I believe I can give it a tick.
3. Original concept - Actually I doubt any story is truly original but there are certainly unique ideas/concepts in the Lord of the Rings.
4. Unique style of writing - Big tick. Its what some people dislike about the book compared to the film. Tolkien making up his own words, throwing in odd characters that contribute little overall and basically twisting language to suit his story.
5. New style of writing - Well he definitely did that he pretty much helped define the fantasy genre so that everyone wanted to copy him afterwards.
6. Huge following - Massive tick. Like Harry Potter millions have read the books and few people don't know the story at least.
7. Expertise - Well in its fantasy genre it is regarded as having the elements all fantasy books should have.
8. Controversial - It actually has been. People debate if it's worthy of its acclaim, whether it copied too much from myth, whether it's actually well written...
9. Underlying themes - Tolkien actually incorporates many strong themes. There's very much themes of morality, anti-war sentiment (if you look into the writing of the books you'll note that), themes relating to nature and relationships, the battle of good and evil and themes that question power and authority (the main one being the ring of course).
10. Substantial influence - In the 1960s and 1970s the book had a major impact upon popular culture. I admit it may not have had the political influence of To Kill a Mockingbird but it has had substantial influence on culture particularly just after its publication.

We should turn this into an entirely new thread. Are these books classics: why or why not haha. But that would be great to see on your website.

[midnightfaerie]

Jonathan, I might just do that! :)

As for LOTR, you really made me think. That was one I read towards the beginning and I've always had a little bias toward it. Let me ask you a few questions:
1. any particular reason 50 yrs?
7. do u consider LOTR the bible of the genre/story all others should live up to?
8. I have heard about the controversial, in fact I have a book on my amazon wish list called
J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth
by Bradley J. Birzer (Paperback)
(have to add that to my to-reads list)
9. I'll give you themes based on nature and relationships and power and authority vs. corruption. So many ppl try to use good vs. evil for any book they can't come up with a theme for. well, yes, you could probably find examples of that theme in most books.
10. How did it have a major impact?

Based on what you've pointed out here, I agree with you. LOTR is a classic. Like I said, I read and reviewed that one back in the beginning, so I didn't have as much of a concrete outline for I believed one to be. There are several I have to review again.

I think it's an awesome idea to start a new thread for individual books! I would love the feedback, for those willing to argue with me on my points! Should we start with LOTR and see if anyone else bites? :)
If so, we have to include some of this commentary so they can see where we're coming from. Perhaps, our last two threads or so? What do u think?

[Jonathan]

1. Well it was published just after the end of world war two to the best of my knowledge. Hang on here we go 1954 was the publishing date.
7. I would as I've read many other fantasy books. Though there are levels in the genre such as urban, paranormal, fairytale and childrens (which is where HP and Narnia fit in) and then epic which as I can see Lord of the Rings sets the benchmark as it really became one of the first and set many of the benchmarks for that series.
10. It became part of a counter cultural movement a sort of politicised thing by the university students in America and Britain. There were multiple shirts with things like "Frodo Lives". you can read it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord....

I love how you're bothering to do that though. The website is definitely bookmarked now for regular checking.

[midnightfaerie]

Gotta love wikipedia. Actually I've heard about the catholic symbology before. I'd love to read more about that. (mental note, look for book/online research - there's gotta be someone out there who wrote more on it)

Thanks for the compliment. It's still a work in progress. If you befriend me on fb, I often post my new reviews there as well in case ur interested.
midnightfaerie's facebook page

As for 1. - no, what I meant was, why choose the timeframe 50 yrs as a benchmark for defining a classic? why not 25 yrs? 10 yrs?

[Jonathan]

Oh I was merely saying that Lord of the Rings had survived the test of time having been around for half a century. I would probably draw the line at about 25 years personally. 10 years feels too short for me as it's enough time for the book to have been published when I was a child and I feel some books which I don't label classics such as Twilight could survive ten years but would die out shortly afterward. I would say 25 years as that means the book was published before the turn of the century. If that makes sense.

[Pamela(AllHoney)]

Don't they use that to classify "classic" cars? Must be at least 50 years?

[The Pirate Ghost]

Actually I think the official time limit for a classic car is 25 years, but, that tends to be like military manuals. The Soviets said for years that we were the most dangerous military on earth. We had every type of manuel that they could think of to tell us how to battle the enemy and when war happened, the knew we weren't going to follow one of them.

[Pamela(AllHoney)]

ok thanks, Hugh. ☺

[Yasiru]

Popularity, taken naively, is a terrible criteria to decide whether a work is a 'classic'. You hear things being instantly lauded and hailed as 'modern classics' these days, but this more qualified classification is harder yet (especially where popular and woefully unambitious and homogeneous genres are concerned), exactly for how often the label is invoked.

Generally, a simple heuristic formula to go by is, 'Does the work do something new, or does it do exceptionally well with whatever established things (themes, structural devices, etc.) it uses?'. Determining what is meant, for instance, by 'exceptionally well' here does somewhat appeal to majority consensus, but in a more measured way than simply asking, 'How well did it sell?' or 'Was it entertaining to the masses?'. The inevitable tragedy of the classification of a work as a classic is that how enduring a work's legacy is naturally takes time to establish. An author can be almost exclusively contemporary (and perhaps controversial within that context) with what he writes, but even after the pressing social concerns that inspired the work are alleviated, there may yet be easily-abstracted lasting value to what the work says and/or how it says it (this is the case with Dickens). But well to remember that there are no shortcuts without the risk of undermining the whole process.

An example, continuing from a theme I noticed from other posts here, would be the Harry Potter series considered against The Lord of the Rings. On popular appeal the playing field would be equal (though perhaps in favour of Rowling's books, having been far more recent), but even at a glance Tolkien is far more ambitious than Rowling could ever be said to be, drawing on mythology at a scale well beyond the superficial way almost every fantasy book can be said to, and adding such meticulous detail that Middle Earth comes alive without the Earth as we know it as a direct crutch (even if it could be said to be Earth, it stands almost as well without this detail). These points in favour of The Lord of the Rings are not at all criticisms of Rowling, but rather, they sooner establish the lasting worth of Tolkien's work, surely propelled by the fantastic sales figures for a quick rise as a modern classic (you would not know it looking at the fantasy landscape today, but during Tolkien's time there was far more diversity to it, and The Lord of the Rings was a game changer). Rowling, for playing the straighter hand (and probably not influencing the course of fiction greatly, if at all), will require time and close analysis as to how exactly her work will avail (if it does, which seems granted on the scale of this generation, but could do with verifying) given that time, and what it is that allows it to do so beyond the relatively 'immediate' (from the publication of the Philosopher's Stone, taken on the scale of how long a work might generally take to be established as a classic) sales figures she enjoys.
In fact, some genres, like fantasy and science fiction, have certain 'fast tracks' for a work to become a modern classic (there is a chance, I should say, precisely because the term is thrown around so often, for a work to be stuck at this stage and never make it to being a true classic- hence the genesis of some of the 'lost classics'), because the genre may be consolidated into certain 'camps'. In fantasy the Tolkien-esque high fantasy camp is a clear one, as are the apocalyptic and space opera camps (themselves subgenres, but rarely roused to anything terribly new) in science fiction.

So no, I say, to taking every claim to modern classicdom without due critique. Better to let the natural course of evaluation prevail (especially since, unlike older times, almost no contemporary work is truly likely to be lost today, making preservation largely a non issue) and not jump the gun.

Personal, or even contemporary social opinion should also not quash the chances of a work to go this course, because, while the value we can most easily recognise in something we read is from positive resonance with those aspects of ourselves we allow, it may be that a negative experience, or one largely unremarkable, is the result of suppressed things according to the fickle social currents that we move at the mercy of at a given era. Some works reemerge out of obscurity after a social paradigm shift for exactly this reason, often, but not always (should it have been particularly unfortunate), with the dim memory of mild to intense controversy at the time of publication.

[Yasiru]

I'm sorry that turned into a mini-essay.

[The Pirate Ghost]

It's been known to happen from time to time...(I do that a lot too). No worries.