Classics for Beginners discussion

Now I just wanted to bring this thought up. I know that we have a thread that is about classic definition and all. So I wanted to bring this thought up connected to that. We have some books (Pride and Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, Shakespeare's plays, Jane Eyre and Lord of the Rings for instance) that very few people would deny are classics.

However we also get books that are about 50/50. Many people think they are classic and many people think they aren't. So how do you personally draw a line on those books? I for instance last read 'The Man Who Was Thursday' and I believe it is a classic as it has stood the test of time, influenced other great writers and has ideas in it which reveal much about the classic author.

What I do is ask myself if I think the book will be read, which doesn't necessarily mean widely, maybe just among scholars, 100 years from now. If so, it's classic, for whatever reason it's read, and whether or not I agree that it's good. If not then not. Then I ask myself why I care and have a drink. But I always end up caring again. Then wondering why again and having another drink. It's one of life's many loops.

It is a line impossible to draw with precision. There has to be a test of time, of course. If enough people read it after many years, it is a classic.

But what's 'enough'? What constitutes 'many' years? I do not pretend to know.

But I do think the test of time should be there. I love Marquez and I am convinced he will be, one day, a classic. Not yet.

Perhaps the more appropriate question is how stringent should the definition of classic be, for the purpose of a reading club? Loose, I say. After all, there is no harm in asking - is this going to be a classic?

I try and say that if it's under a decade in age it's not worth considering classic, in fact if it was published after 1990 it's probably too old. I generally think that anything 30-40 years is marginally in the category of classic and 50 years is likely enough time!

Less than fifty years old can be a classic?!

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.

Before that, they're just on the radar as potential classics, imo.

Well I think something in 1970 can be classic but that's about as early as I give it. Something like The Silmarillion for example in my view. And that's classic because of the fact it was actually written way before that. I consider the first Hitchikers as a classic and that's about 30-40 years at most.

Much as I love Hitchhikers, I can't class it as a classic yet, and even the Silmarillion is tricky. I have no doubt the Silmarillion will be, but I'm not certain about Hitchhikers. How many teenagers know about Hitchhikers, let alone love it? (Clue: not as many as we'd like.) We went to a stage show of it recently, and almost everyone in the audience was between 30 and 55, and judging by the clothes, there was, as you'd expect, a strong geek contingent within that. I think it's becoming more niche as time goes on.

There's a fair chance that Tolkein, and all his books, will be less widely read or appreciated in 100 years than Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom's cabin are today.

Hitchhiker's Guide will certainly be unheard of and out of print.

200 years may be long enough for the world to forget Hemingway.

Being well known even two generations after your death does not ensure a long legacy, or lasting respect from critics and readers. Meanwhile, being a cult classic such as Hitchhiker's is a virtual guarantee of long-term obscurity.

For as much as I love his books, I just can't put Tolkien into 'classics'. It's just too early...

And the Hitchiker's... no, nononono. Good books. Very funny. But not classics. Not now, not ever. Ok, the last part might be strong. But I don't think it will ever arise to that status.

I usually think of 'classics' in two categories: 'modern classics' and 'old classics' and I think of things such as Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Hobbit, and Rebecca as the former, and books by authors such as Dickens as the latter.

Jessica wrote: "I usually think of 'classics' in two categories: 'modern classics' and 'old classics' and I think of things such as Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Hobbit, and Rebecca as the former, and books by authors..."

Same here.

Not to mention that I class classics according to genres. Tolkien's works are fantasy classics for me in the modern classics section.

The first Hitchikers I stand by as a comedy type classic. And I will stand by that. Yes they're not my favourite books ever. But the reason I stand by that is I don't just think of classics as 'books that will be remembered in the future'. There are many classics of one hundred years ago that are not read today but are undeniably classic in my view (how many read The Odyssey, The Iliad or The Aenid for instance?) I think of classics as books that should be read by people, okay perhaps they'll more be 'cult classics' but still I think they'll be considered as classic in some degree.

I think part of the problem for us is that we have SO MANY books. Back in the centuries when most people who were literate read the greek classics The Iliad, The Odyssey and The Aenid there weren't many books so everyone read the a fairly small canon compared to us.

Personally I think The Lord of The Rings is a classic and will remain a classic but most books that are bestsellers now will not be remembered ten years from now. Classics will in many cases be niche classics and not really read by all literate people. We are becoming tribal readers in that we talk about books we love and reread only to people who also love and reread the books we love. . . but we will also have minimal memory of books, good books, that people who read a different genre consider classics.

I find most books on the "best sellers" lists are boring or, worse, irritating. On the other hand, I picked up an old Heinlein the other day and loved it again. I enjoy a series of old police procedurals written and set in 70's and 80's Los Angeles, with all the viewpoints and prejudices of that time, but I don't know anyone else who reads them.

In the 'old' days when everyone agreed on the classics, only a small sliver of the population read at all but we would be awed by the spoken classics that people would listen to told by bards and itinerant story tellers. I find The Lord of the Rings to be a classic and can talk about it with many people but I have never read all the way through Beowulf which "primitive" people could probably quote large sections of.

Sorry, long post.

Rachel wrote: "I think part of the problem for us is that we have SO MANY books. Back in the centuries when most people who were literate read the greek classics The Iliad, The Odyssey and The Aenid there weren'..."

There are so many good points in there!

"Classics will in many cases be niche classics and not really read by all literate people."

I'm starting to see that in the way I approach books. I realised that I tend to see classics within genres now and I think that is to do with how we have created genres and sub-genres and a whole range of classifications. In the past books and stories weren't 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi' or 'romance' they were just poems, novels, plays or short stories really.

I think part of the problem for us is that we have SO MANY books.

Not only that but we have translations now. Back in the past people used to learn to read in other languages and write in them. Now we have self publishing and translation software and people who translate for jobs. It's a lot of publishing that is done now. I was reading about G.K. Chesterton who wrote only a few decades ago and P.D. James commented that he 'was a man of letters'. Unlike most authors now Chesterton made a living like Oscar Wilde solely through what he wrote and he wrote a lot of thoughtful and philosophical things. There's a real swamp of books now and so fewer men and women living by letters exist!

Rachel wrote: "I think part of the problem for us is that we have SO MANY books...
Sorry, long post. "

Don't apologise! I think you make really good points, and explain them very well.

I know of one good indication that a book will have a good chance of being a classic in the near and distant future: Pulitzer Prize winners, Booker Awards, etc. tend to 'self-promote' a novel to become an accepted classic in school, academics, and among us book-lovers as well.

1. A classic has must have some artistic quality above mere entertainment value. It must be an expression of life, truth, and/or beauty.

2. It must have stood the test of time; be a representation of it's period in literary history; be worthy of lasting designation as a classic. I'm sorry, but anything written in the recent past doesn't qualify. Most of what we consider classics today are flashes in the pan--the may become "cult" classics or "genre" classics.

3.It must have universal appeal--to a wide range of readers of diverse backgrounds and experience levels.

4. It must have influenced other writers and have a sense of history about it. It's roots of influence must be able to be clearly traced.

Example: Moby Dick is a classic. Some of Stephen King's works will probably become classic in time more than likely. Douglas Adams' works--probably not. Tolkiens'--probably will never rise above "genre" classic status.

Squire wrote: "1. A classic has must have some artistic quality above mere entertainment value. It must an expression of life, truth, and/or beauty.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. When I think about a classic, I don't just think about enjoyment value, or even age really. It has to express a (profound) truth, or be truly beautiful. Thus, a book like 1984 can be considered a classic, not for it's beauty (obviously), but because it expresses an important truth about humanity.

An interesting situation arises when you consider the "other" works of an author of a classic. For example, contray to what another poster on this thread mused, Ernest Hemingway's place in literary history is without question. "For Whom the Bell Tolls," "A Farewell to Arms," and "The Old Man and the Sea" are bona fide classics. But what about "The Torrents of Spring" and "The Garden of Eden"? I would classify them as works by a classic author, but not classics.

I have a question. I was just looking at my bookshelf and came across Matilda by Roald Dahl which I read awhile back. I never thought of it as a classic so don't have it on my classic shelf. Over 600 people have it on a classics shelf. It was published in 1988. Do people here think it is classed as a classic?

I think it might become a classic, but I don't think it should be considered one right now.

What about most of his other stories published in 60s?

I consider his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at least a children's classic due to its overall influence.

I agree with Jonathan.

I agree with some of the earlier comments that a classic must have more than just entertainment value, that it must have artistic merit / beauty beyond that. I also think a key component of a classic is universal themes - so something written 300 years ago may still transcend the time elapsed & have relevance to our lives today, even if it is set in the past. After all this is why classics are often re-made or re-told in modern versions. Therefore, I also think that a book written in the last ten years may also become a classic because it may be beautifully written, and deal with universal themes. Of course this will always cause debate as we can not know in advance if it will 'stand the test of time'! What do you think?

I definitely agree with you Chatterjak. There are probably hundreds of books written in the past ten years which will be considered classics, after all just because there are more authors and books being published now than in for example the early 90s, doesn't mean that they are any less talented, or write about anything less meaningful. Surely some authors of today (even if only a handful) write in such a way which is artistic and beautiful. Why would we want to forget these?

I think there's quite a lot of snobbery about contemporary books, which is strange to me because all the classics started off as brand new at some point. There also seems to be a modern trend towards putting down any authour who achieves mainstream popularity (or maybe it's just more snobbery!) - which I find odd as it can't all be rubbish surely! I'm sure many (certainly not all) classics rose from a tide of popularity in the past! There may be tons of pulp fiction out there, but that's not to say every new release will belong to that category.

Chatterjak wrote: "I think there's quite a lot of snobbery about contemporary books, which is strange to me because all the classics started off as brand new at some point..."

The trouble with recent books is that it's impossible to judge how likely they are to become classics until long after the initial kerfuffle has died down. I think that means you have to wait until most potential readers were not readers when it was first published, so I wouldn't consider anything written in the last 50 years to be a classic yet.

It's an interesting one isnt it, I'm not sure if I read it in this thread or another, but someone went back over (book) award winners of times gone by - some are now most definitely consider classics, and others have slipped into obscurity. Even the 'experts' get it wrong! Fancy that! ;)

Cecily wrote: "Chatterjak wrote: "I think there's quite a lot of snobbery about contemporary books, which is strange to me because all the classics started off as brand new at some point..."

The trouble with rec..."

I actually can consider anything written 40 to 50 years ago to be a classic, because my generation, a new generation, were not living then. I tend to see it more by whether the book survives across generations and retains popularity. Lord of the Rings is a classic to me because it will and has survived, as is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Narnia (though they may be more children's classics)

Yep - across the generations is key, so I guess you are young enough to judge books that I can't. :(

It would interesting if I asked my grandmothers this question whether they had a different response about what makes a classic. Perhaps it's a shifting definition...

Now there's a good idea, not that I have any living grandparents, but asking the generation ahead of us and comparing responses would be good.

Cecily wrote: "Now there's a good idea, not that I have any living grandparents, but asking the generation ahead of us and comparing responses would be good."

I may do this when I next email my grandmother to talk about all things literature and life.

I consider it a genre classic. It is an expression of life, truth, and beauty, and while it's intial appeal was widespread, it's appeal and influence today have been limited to the sc-fi genre.

Squire wrote: "I consider it a genre classic. It is an expression of life, truth, and beauty, and while it's intial appeal was widespread, it's appeal and influence today have been limited to the sc-fi genre."

I'd agree with you on that. There are certain genres in which books are classics but not necessarily outside of that.

I have to disagree about time. Some books that are less than 50 years old can be considered classics. Equally, just because it's over 50 years old does not make a book a classic.

Also, the idea that sci-fi classics are only classics in their own genre is just ridiculous. I think that genre books can be classics and don't have to be classified separately.