Classics for Beginners discussion
Defining a Classic
Mod
Even though I didn't enjoy a lot of the books I had to read in school, that was a good thing about having to read them, as I had to go to the process of analyzing that work and my reactions to it.
I don't subscribe to the test of time way of defining a classic. I think it eliminates books that have proven their classic status in other ways. I do believe that many books that were considered trash because of popular appeal back when they came out are now classics, so the tide can change on what is and isn't considered suitable to the classics canon. Plus there is a European bias that would eliminate younger works from the classic canon just because of when they were written. If you look at most of the African American literature that is considered classic, most was written after the 1950s. Hence, that is why I would consider Beloved and Song of Solomon, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and The Color Purple classics.
I subscribe to at least 20 years. Because I believe in the idea that any book worth reading at 10 will be worth reading at 20 or 30. So a recently released book now to be worthy of classic status I would say should exist through at least one generation of people growing up. Every book I've read that I believe is classic has existed for close to that so for me it's tried and true. Time for books helps me to see them in proper perspective, not just the perspective of: it was a great day so my emotions influenced my reading at the time.
Ultimately, as Orwell argues in the essay I posted on the previous page, the test of time is the most reliable metric to be had. On the other hand, there are less reliable, but correlated metrics at our disposal today (so that works are now not 'lost' as often- so that even if a book that proves its worth in 'other ways' will go on to prove it by endurance also and is thus not eliminated- why jump the gun in that case?).Neither do I subscribe to the idea that there's any true 'European bias' as Lady Danielle puts it. It has simply been the case that certain cultures, in their prosperity (admittedly at the expense of others perhaps), have had longer to produce great literary traditions. I think to overridingly take contemporary value of a work based on social trends is as effective a blindfold as we can put on ourselves exactly because we may have less critical and more emotional investment in these issues when they are at their hottest- hence my call for longer deliberation.
Though not concerned with race, Dickens wrote of social ills too, and while this made him a popular writer of his day, what makes his work endure as classics of literature is not simply the fact that he addressed them, but because he could draw you back with his narrative long after the issues have become irrelevant. There is a certain abstract worth that is essential to a work that addresses social issues, and to establish this we have the test of endurance alone as a sure indicator (though critical acclaim and popular appeal might be very good correlates). The only other option is to give any and all literature produced under some form of oppression or other a free pass without considering objective and societally-detached literary merit.
Mod
If authors of color are not allowed to have their work published, how is it available to be evaluated to meet those time-tested criteria? It isn't. So that yardstick is a flawed one, in my opinion.
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "We'll have to agree to disagree, Yasiru, which is fine with me.If authors of color are not allowed to have their work published, how is it available to be evaluated to meet those time-tested crit..."
But that would be an exception. Where authors have been banned for writing - well publishing. Those authors should be allowed classic status for their works not only because they battled hardship but because their work would have likely stood the test of time anyway.
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "We'll have to agree to disagree, Yasiru, which is fine with me.If authors of color are not allowed to have their work published, how is it available to be evaluated to meet those time-tested crit..."
I'm not certain what you mean there. It's of course a social issue that anyone at all should be allowed to have their work published however they can manage, and it's a right one should fight for, but if a work isn't released in some form or other, there's not to be any literary judgement at all.
Jonathan wrote: "Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "We'll have to agree to disagree, Yasiru, which is fine with me.If authors of color are not allowed to have their work published, how is it available to b..."
This may be true, but assuming it on a mere likelihood (no matter how strong) is what undermines the process for me.
Mod
That's the point I am making.
As to what works for you as determining classics, it doesn't necessarily have to work for the next person, which was my point in the first place. And while it's interesting to discuss these things, at some point it becomes a circular argument that has no end in sight.
The purpose of this group is not to close the minds of members on to what makes a classic, but to open the doors to their exploration of the genre, which is why I am opposed to narrowing the viewpoints with a small list of criteria that classics have to meet.
Which is where in the end it all comes down to what you believe is a classic with the exception that various works will always be accepted as classics regardless of who they are written by.
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "If you say that a book can only be a classic if it's fifty years old, and there are not established canonical classics written by writers of color, how do you know that's because they weren't publi..."You can't judge something when reasonable dissemination hasn't happened- it's the same as a thing not existing for all purposes. Even when a never-published manuscript from ages ago is found, the first person to read it and like it doesn't point to its unfortunate circumstances and abruptly declare it a classic. It goes through a certain process yet to become more than a mere historical curiosity.
For having overcome censorship and oppression, a work might have great social influence at a given time, but presumably, if the work is good enough in its contents and not just its circumstances, what it evokes isn't going to diminish in a few decades (if it does then obviously it wasn't worth it to begin with).
I make a distinction between classics and socially significant works (like Dickens' popular novels were during his time and what entries of African American literature you mentioned). It might well be that almost all socially significant works make it to eventually becoming classics after all, but presumption seems damaging to a verdict on the work that also does justice to other criteria of literary merit. Something could have great relevance during its own time, but could it evoke something worthwhile in a reader generations from this present state, when the issues in question are not only irrelevant, but also possibly forgotten? That's the question we should be asking.
Social and historical currents might serve as the origin of a work, and the work in turn might influence social currents, but what's ultimately noteworthy is whether the work stands well enough independent of this one criterion.
You may read a thing and deem it worthy of whatever you like, but everyone feels strongly about what they like and feel is important. This is exactly why objectiveness is needed, and nothing works better than hindsight to allow us such a perspective. Attempting to congratulate ourselves without delay with a label that is rightfully due time and deliberation is a blind endeavour.
This is of course assuming that we're in search of truly exceptional literary achievements that say something significant on some level about humanity as a whole, and not just trying to inject legitimacy to personal preferences. But it would appear we must disagree on this point.
Regarding prizes, I think Mitchell is well worth listening to here, ranting about a case of the Booker-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=... (around the 11:20 mark where it's set to begin)
oh my god, that was hilarious! Yasiru, where DO you find these videos?!?
Speaking of videos anyone who's interested in looking at education should see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcD.... I liked it because it indicated to me how sometimes we kill creativity and call it educating people. It's long though (11 minutes) so make sure you have time and internet.I also think it applies to classics as sometimes education destroys a creative view of them. I know sometimes the way classics are taught alters our view of them and removes our divergent outlook.
@Lea, you're very clear and concise! Those are good ideas. I love the idea of leaving a lasting impression and reflecting a certain era that had a significant impact on society... I'll have to add those as subtopics to mine...Charactaristics of a Classic
@Jonathan - loved the video! I too when travelling west to east in the US lose interest in OK. ;)
But seriously...I completely agree with this line of thinking and have often had discussions on it with friends. If only we could educate children on a more individual level. I always especially hated the grouping kids by age groups and am already butting heads with the system. My son who is 4, I'm teaching him to read, can already do most things on the kindergarden list. (I obtained one to see what he would learn in kindergarden). However, his bday is in Nov. So he still has another year before he can go to school! He's already bored. I was seriously thinking about home schooling for awhile, it's becoming increasingly popular, but my husband is against it for social reasons. I'm still not sure.
One thing I wish the video had discussed was his idea for a solution for this! How do we make this change? How do we start the movement? How do we change rules that have been set for so long? Curious to know if you have any opinions on this Jonathan, or anyone for that matter.
If anyone were to start a movement, I'd be on board.
Mod
I homeschooled my children until college. There are so many activities for homeschoolers that you have to plan your day. In addition, there is Scouts, art classes, sports, etc. Most of the socialization is school is negative, while homeschooling is more profitable and helpful in developing your child's social skills. The parents are present and can stop the negative behavior/bullying/tantrums, etc. quickly.
In addition, colleges love homeschooled graduates. My son got accepted at every school he applied to.
I suggest you find a local homeschooling group and see what opportunities they offer.
I was homeschooled until high school and it was great. It's probably one of the major influences for my desire to learn on my own and to read and write about powerful ideas. We had to make a decision this week whether to opt for a certain thing being the major purpose of schooling and I opted for cognitive development. Because I think schooling should teach kids to think for themselves and not accept just the answer. I think when it comes to what makes a classic we should also think the same way: not reading into a set idea but thinking about others.
janine wrote: "oh my god, that was hilarious! Yasiru, where DO you find these videos?!?"Too much Youtube is to blame I think, and being entirely too retentive with connections. :D
Lea Ann wrote: "What a compelling topic!
When I think of how a classic should be defined, I think of several characteristics. In order to be considered a classic (in my opinion), it 1.) should reflect a certain e..."
On the broadest terms I quite agree.
@Jonathan- Nice video (and an excellent talk of Steve Pinker's on language among the suggestions). Goes to show how making education's primary focus the securing of employment does more harm than good. I remember listening to a talk on TED also by Sir Ken Robinson which you might like to look for (unfortunately I can't remember the title of it).
It would be great to exchange one's Ritalin for LSD, figuratively speaking, but I don't think it entirely unwarranted that those pursuing the arts are 'looked down upon' as the presentation suggests. It's certainly no fault of those who take up these subjects, but there's a clear drop in critical thinking skills and the like compared to more industrious disciplines in an aggregate of students in arts. You're more likely to find a Storm in a given arts discipline. It has come to cater to the capriciously whimsical and thereby, continuing the factory line metaphor, tends to produce such individuals (the extent of the problem is made alarmingly clear should one look up the Science Wars and its like). However, I don't think this is a problem to be addressed at university- we need to raise standards at school (the opposite of what seems to be happening, putting the cart before the horse on the securing employment front)- instilling diverse methods in students (and encouraging the search for new methods) as opposed to answers. Focus on the methods rather than answers at the back would necessarily involve critical analysis as to why a certain method should be sound and better than some other. It's often the case that students are averse to logic when offered at university by the philosophy department, and I think it's because a certain mindset is battered into students at school- one that brings about a kind of resentment (without anything to hone this rejection of the orthodox) and thus the pursuit of what is perceived as lax.
Of course, in my discipline, mathematics, it's rather more clear than in most how a focus on methods could be achieved- which brings me to the matter of home schooling. If I were a parent I'd be averse to trying it simply because I would think myself lacking the broad exposure necessary to tackle subjects which are not my forte (this is too a problem with public or state schools- because teachers don't tend to be particularly well qualified in what they teach, since schools are simply happy to have anyone with some education background given the heavy demand and supply bottleneck).
A solution may be to employ something akin to the Moore method and just be less heavy handed when it comes to one's own influence in the course of teaching, relying instead on the child reading, questioning and finding out things for themselves from as wide a range of sources as can be provided (quite a lot more now than even a few decades ago, with easy access to multiple offerings of things on the web, etc.), with the parent only a general guide- a gentle hand. I would imagine then that divergent thinking would flourish, given what's available for a child's perusal is again sufficiently divergent. The parent's energies are also better spent this way.
More than this though, I think the social reasons are quite important. It may be that a child experiences more 'negative socialisation' at school, but that can be valuable in and of itself given a strong emotional foundation is provided at home (parental engagement is certainly due here, and not the passive, observing kind I call for in actual learning). School is one of the first places one encounters true diversity. Family and friends made through family tend to take the same mould, broadly speaking, but at school one finds those moulded differently and more independently. All sorts of people who will grow up to be different and whom one might have to deal with later in life in professional or personal capacities, in which case it's something of a boon to have been exposed to and studied the development of such individuals even as one develops so one might better know them and the resulting dynamics of various relationships with people.
Besides, a suitably motivated parent can make learning experiences at home and at school complementary to each other.
I define 'classics' as something that's been written ages ago, but is still loved by many today. It has survived the test of time.
I've been thinking about the idea of stories and classics. I think we often read for two main reasons: to enjoy ourselves and to gain information and ideas. So I think that a classic is a novel that to put it simply is able to do both over several decades of reading. I should be able to pick up a classic now and get some ideas from it and then read it again later and get some ideas from it as well as enjoying the story (hopefully).Speaking of which as I'm becoming a teacher hopefully it led me to thinking about 'classics' and education. I think that often teachers do not properly explain to students why we need to read such old books. I know that often many people I went to school with were like 'they're old, dry and boring'. So I was thinking that it should be the teacher's job to explain that 'true classics' have ideas that are in essence eternal and that is why we need to study them. Thoughts?
Jonathan wrote: "I've been thinking about the idea of stories and classics. I think we often read for two main reasons: to enjoy ourselves and to gain information and ideas. So I think that a classic is a novel tha..."In a broad sense I concur. I suppose it may only be our fancy that anything at all is really forever, but even so, a piece of literature can become a collection of 'meta-letters', in which ideas are recorded just as letters together make for words, except meta-letters are manifolds of context (through words, sentences, passages, whatever), through which abstract ideas nonetheless shine (and may be thought to be devices will serve exactly the purpose of conveying as well as perhaps more relatably exploring the elemental or abstract).
If a story is told richly (for instance, with more ambitious fantasy and science fiction) or essentially (with say, modernist fiction) enough, it has value as a supposition no matter being cut off from historical context. The supposition may come to be regarded as primitive or irrelevant, but maybe the questions raised from behind the veil of words will still encumber us in such a way that the narrative will run away with our own ideas and impressions. For instance take myth- one of mankind's oldest surviving mythical narratives is The Epic of Gilgamesh, which isn't defeated by the advances of empirical science today because it isn't about setting down a bunch of facts (not that science is about this, but lesser works slain by science or modern thought in general tend to fall in the declarations of what supposedly is or was or is forever- fact rather than idea); it reflects rather, on mortality and what it means for man. Millennia on, it still matters as a great work of literature quite apart from historical value (the same can be said of Homer's poems, etc.).
I agree 100% with your thought on teachers, Jonathan. None of my high school teachers ever said what the reason for reading the works were, and instead seemed to want students to figure it out on their own through class discussion. I think that can be a problem because many students don't engage in conversation, and those who are eager to parse meaning would have likely done so on their own anyway. In contrast, I had a literature professor this Spring that allowed the students to discuss the work, but also told us what past critical examination revealed. I loved getting to discuss possible meanings with the class, as well as getting the "so that's what it means" perspective from the teacher. I ended up enjoying the works from that class much much more than previous literature classes.
Yasiru wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I've been thinking about the idea of stories and classics. I think we often read for two main reasons: to enjoy ourselves and to gain information and ideas. So I think that a class..."I was thinking about it in a broad sense from Shakespeare. He took the old concepts and wrote plays which were social commentaries and full of comedy so they were entertaining but also full of grand philosophical ideas. Love the idea of The Epic of Gilgamesh as you used it. I shall have to find time to read that.
Melissa Jeanette wrote: "I agree 100% with your thought on teachers, Jonathan. None of my high school teachers ever said what the reason for reading the works were, and instead seemed to want students to figure it out on t..."
Yes one of the challenging ideas my tutor presented was: why teach our subjects? What is the relevance of say History, English and Literature for modern students? And I think it's very much about getting the balance between understanding that texts are there to study because of the ideas in them and how these ideas are applicable to everyday life. But often teaching can be almost one sided? Texts can be presented as all there for reading only just so you have something to read. I know that when lecturers and teachers (or essays even) explain some of the ideas in books I enjoy them a lot more.
Jonathan wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I've been thinking about the idea of stories and classics. I think we often read for two main reasons: to enjoy ourselves and to gain information and ideas. So I thi..."I thought Gilgamesh was a good example of a unifying, overriding and (through the narrative) repeatedly enforced theme being explored. It's quite a short read, but a translation with a decent introduction would be best (like the Penguin one).
Shakespeare's case on the other hand is indeed broad. He's a good (if more complex) example in that he touched on so many themes that his whimsy annoyed Tolstoy (I posted Orwell's essay about this previously on this thread I think). He also embedded some themes very deep through his use of language and used a fair bit of misdirection since even his seeming propaganda plays for the Tudors have more merit than can be expected given they were written for such a purpose. Colourful as his contexts are, sometimes they're not too relevant (eg- Hamlet) or comic, almost mocking subversions (eg- Richard III)- at once making for deep characters and giving way for a plethora of interpretations ('as you like it' indeed!).
This is well worth a read:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/...
I've been long dissatisfied with subpar authors peddling cloying drivel under the moniker 'young adult' and getting away with it (often with undue praise, since it seems nobody expects much of books written for children!). Howard Jacobson frames the trouble very well in this piece.
Great article... Or at least great message from Jacobson.
Regarding teachers, though, they don't need to explain why we read classics, and they don't need to communicate anything about importance, cultural relevance, or historical context. They need to encourage students to find something that they can connect to or appreciate personally... Something that interests them beyond an academic context. The teachers can then help the students understand what they read... Not through abstraction, or theoretical interpretation, but simply understanding what the author is saying. They must be alert to humor and irony, so as not to render a dry experience or neglect the entertaining aspect of a work. The teacher can also help students share their reading experience and learn to articulate their own thoughts regarding the work.Offering students access to work that is daring, perhaps radical, risqué, or even crude, may well be a good idea. They need to be startled into realizing the potency of literature. It's not boring at all if you give it a chance.
Perhaps a dose of Gargantua and Pantagruel could do the trick for some. But the students need the liberty to select something they enjoy, and reject even great works if they can find a good alternative which will hold hold their interest and broaden their experience of what a book can do.
P.S., I may have just stumbled onto a definition of classic literature that even Harold Bloom would endorse (but he said it first and better): a classic is a startling work that expands our view of what literature is capable of.
This discussion overlaps with the Debated Classics one: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...As I said there, the idea of defining something as a classic, rather than a brilliant book that is a potential classic, when it is only 20 years old seems very premature to me. I think to be a true classic, something (and this doesn't only apply to books) needs to stand the test of time and be loved by people who have no emotional ties to when it was first available. That means that 50 years is the absolute earliest I'd let something qualify.
As Lady Danielle points out, that means "there are not established canonical classics written by writers of color" which is awful, but that's not a fault of the definition of classic, imo. If their works weren't published (or they weren't given enough education to write in the first place), there is, tragically, very little to judge.
20 years is too early I think but I do think that 35 to 40 years is closer to acceptable. I consider it on the basis of how much culture can change in a time period. 40 years is enough for a generation or two to pass almost so plenty of time to see whether a book can survive and be applicable to future generations.
I've had a couple too many drinks, but here goes.But is anything written currently even valid to be labelled as a 'classic'?
What importance does literature written recently hold today, let alone in the future? Excluding more technical works (studies in medicine and the sciences etc)
For me classics end around 1950, after World War II when the world experienced rapid globalisation and greater ease of access and transportation of information.
Off the top of my head I think the last works to really make any changes to the shape the world and people are Karl Marx's.
Mod
Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "If you say that a book can only be a classic if it's fifty years old, and there are not established canonical classics written by writers of color, how do you know that's because they weren't publi..."I just wanted to put in my own two cents because I completely agree with Lady Danielle, and I think her opinion presents a new way of looking at something that is traditional. There is an opinion - one which I can't think of the source right now - that states that most "classic" novels were determined by white males because they deemed it as good literature. But "good literature" has such a subjective definition that I think, in a sense, it can't be pinned down. This is the case with classics. If you base your definition on something that was written a long time ago, then you eliminate many demographics (racially, for example) because they either didn't have the tools to write it, or the publishers' tools.
In my opinion, a classic is a book that you think states something profound. It's a book that ignites a discussion, or presents a new way of looking at things - one that had a profound impact on yourself. I am part of other reading groups, and I've come across discussions of people creating their own list of classics. It's all subjective.
Briana wrote: "Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "If you say that a book can only be a classic if it's fifty years old, and there are not established canonical classics written by writers of color, how d..."It isn't about how long ago something was written down, but whether it endures independent of the shifting social dynamic. There might well be too much variation to too specifically and without fail pinpoint what becomes a classic, but this trait, almost like evolutionary success, must be assured in any case. You don't eliminate demographics in that if a work has endured, anyone at all can still read it. It's unfortunate if no works from the past are available- but this is not to be remedied by being patronising and conciliatory and disregarding this crucial qualification, but by allowing time enough for works from whatever group or region or ethnicity to withstand the same test.
This opinion that white men deemed the worth of everything (with the connotation that both being white and being men unduly skews their judgement) is not entirely fair. In fact, apart from an attitude that reveres the Greeks and Romans for their 'classics' more than their Eastern contemporaries (a slowly unravelling attitude I think; while Homer is certainly great, there is much interest now for instance, in Vyasa and Valmiki, and the great Chinese classics as well), how we've come to value what we have has been about recognising and preserving human achievement rather than petty revisionism and identity politics.
It's easy to say that everything's subjective to spare feelings and avoid the issue, but certain works are clearly better than others, and even in the murkier territories we know (perhaps exactly because we have a long accumulation of works) that certain characteristics are common to those works which are best regarded of all (in a statistical sense). We may not exactly 'quantify' these or be too explicit about them, but it might be possible to describe and hone our idea of what makes certain works so great (not too rigidly to be sure, but time also erodes our strictures- consider contemporary reactions against the long term appreciation for a work like Ulysses).
It should also be noted that tribal peoples who you say haven't had the tools to write or become published, may yet have rich oral traditions which go entirely overlooked in our rush to defend what is (seemingly) seen as a deficiency. Many of the oldest classics in any civilisation came eventually to be written down as a way of preserving such oral histories or myths.
Once liberated, those who have been long voiceless don't want us to raise our voices for them, but the time to muster their own and say what they will.
I don't have anything to add to this discussion but I wanted to say to you, Yasiru, that that is one hell of an excellent post.
I think there are a lot of missteps we can make when we try to straddle this tricky divide between the subjective and objective in appreciating a work. Sometimes the sorts of 'classics' I best enjoy tend to be obscure or pigeonholed (and thus, in my opinion, underappreciated) next to the most well-known and oft mentioned, but I still feel that there's a core to a story independent of its conceits and abstractions (where much of the subjectivity tends to linger) which can be measured against that of another story.
Yes, that's why I currently say around 30 to 40 years. Enough time to escape from one era to another. In one era a book written about the cold war might be seen as a classic but in another it might lack the relevance. I believe that relevance is a key here to looking at classics. You might say 'how are the Iliad or the Odyssey relevant today?' There are multiple references to the mythology of the Romans hence they help us to understand modern references in literature. A book that merely existed as entertainment might be a good book but not classic.
The objective part of the definition of classic is "a very old work which endures." Of course it's still ambiguous unless someone puts specific limits on "very old," and clarifies what it means to "endure" (e.g., are their 1000 alive today who have read it? That could be one such defining term). But we can live with ambiguity, as it is usually present in most language, and we still have a working, objective word.The subjective side of "classic" involves judgements of literary merit and so on. Perhaps we could avoid this, or admit that we can't reach universal agreement on such terms.
BUT, while you may require a book to be "great" before you call it "classic," this does not mean that greatness is sufficient for defining a classic. AND, widespread appreciation, respect, or positive critical reception in the short term (meaning a period of one or too lifetimes!) does not indicate that a book will ever be regarded as a classic.
It's fun to try to predict what will endure in the future, but when in doubt, the usual assumption should be "it will not endure." People tend to greatly overestimate the endurance of art that's popular in their own time.
Zadignose wrote: "...It's fun to try to predict what will endure in the future, but when in doubt, the usual assumption should be "it will not endure." People tend to greatly overestimate the endurance of art that's popular in their own time."Spot on. And that applies just as much to music, architecture, painting etc.
It may well be that nothing endures past some given, long enough timeframe, but as Jonathan suggested, consistent interest over a couple of generations (or a lasting revived interest) should at least put a work into the running for being regarded a classic. Of course, some classics go in and out of vogue through longer periods (or, in the reverse phenomena of what I mentioned earlier, become pigeonholed after achieving their status), and in this way it's sometimes possible to set up a hierarchy with those works best regarded over the longest time at the top (for instance, the dramatic works of William Shakespeare, Dante's Divine Comedy, Homer's Iliad, etc.), which I think find their way there because they were either foundational in the way our culture was built up and have elements which emanate through their influence in later work, or because they touch upon something of the nature of the human condition despite their conceits (and maybe they were appealing in the first place for the former point exactly because of this).(An observation which might please Karl Popper is that it is possible to study 'meta-criticism'- how critical opinions vary over time. We might assume that critical criteria are more firmly fixed than changeable tastes over time and suffer inertia in their own evolution, so this might be an illuminating line of investigation.)
This wait of a few decades may seem arbitrary or a matter of convenience, but I say, why not? So long as it allows the literary sphere to be active and to flourish, and that appreciation spans at least a couple of generations so as to strain the shackles of contemporaneity, it shouldn't matter when exactly we declare something a classic seeing as a work which has been exhausted over this span would not be imposed on anyone afterwards unless they actively seek it (so that a kind of natural selection-like mechanism comes to effect, perhaps thanks to modern freedoms and capitalist outlook in that few ideologies are suppressed).
But I meant for endurance (with limits surely, but any work that stands long enough will have other works allude to it and thus become a foundation stone of the developing canon even if after some while popular interest wanes in the work itself) to be the ultimate objective test for a work in contention to be regarded as a classic. While this makes prediction a tricky business, there's a preceding manifold of minor objective qualities to which we ought to pay heed (though these are ultimately superseded by the endurance criterion and also wrestle against one another or are subverted knowingly for whatever experimental purposes). Often opinions on these are facilely relegated to the subjective realm for no better reason than that not all parties have had equal exposure to well known or canonical works which are similar to the one in contention (consider the genre of dystopian fiction for instance). One such criterion I think, should be that where applicable, the author manages to achieve diverse enough character voices (or the full scope of a single character's thoughts), so that a narrative doesn't become a monograph. This directly influences character range and development, and may well help explore themes more effectively in that more than one viewpoint can be cast on them. Another might be how novel the figures of speech, imagery and prose structures employed are (which affects the treatment of even familiar themes), and yet another may be how efficiently (with concessions afforded to pacing) the author conveys what he wishes to.
The subjective element, though powerful and immediately felt, comes in after these, in gauging how effectively was absorbed what has been read, and what reactions and how powerful were elicited from doing so. Both the reader's expectations and their sphere of prior exposure to comparable (in whatever way) literature are subjective, but each individual should be able to reasonably compensate for, if not identify and isolate these when they offer their analyses or critiques. Subjectivity can thereby be fixed in the balance between these concessions and the attested effect the work had, and we can focus then on what is comparable.
Are The Chronicles of Narnia considered classics?
Mod
Rebecca wrote: "Are The Chronicles of Narnia considered classics?"I'd also consider them classics myself but more subgenre classics rather than overall classics.
Hmm....like music, classic books written many moons ago that still fascinate and may relate to your life experiences. After so long written, still able to generate interest whether you may like or dislike it.
I came across this video yesterday- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVLpdz...Thought I should share it here.
Out of the three choices I pick the author who wrote it but, an author may write a classic and have other books that would not qualify.
Alvin wrote: ""Classic' - a book which people praise and don't read."
— Mark Twain"
I always like to read that! thanks!
— Mark Twain"
I always like to read that! thanks!
Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "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..."
I am so glad you feel this way as I have sure encountered it here on goodreads. I even had something from goodreads going onto my FB account saying that my friends do NOT read enough classics! I could NOT believe it.
I am not fond of intellectual snobbery, so I definitely don't think reading..."
I am so glad you feel this way as I have sure encountered it here on goodreads. I even had something from goodreads going onto my FB account saying that my friends do NOT read enough classics! I could NOT believe it.
Classics for Beginners
Books mentioned in this topic
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)The Color Purple (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
Gargantua and Pantagruel (other topics)
The Epic of Gilgamesh (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
George Orwell (other topics)Aldous Huxley (other topics)
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Gabriel García Márquez (other topics)
Gabriel García Márquez (other topics)
I believe you can make statements about books so long as you back up with evidence. Like I do not like this book because... But to go 'it sucks' without explaining why doesn't make sense to me.