Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

I just finished Busman's Honeymoon, a murder mystery written in the late 1930's. If I'm still reading it 80 years later, it's obviously stood the test of time to some extent which is what many people point to as the indication of a classic.

I really like Sayers' mysteries and taken as novels, I find them superior to Agatha Christie's mysteries. Yet, I'd be more willing to classify some of Christie's murder mysteries "classics" than I would Sayers' books, even though I like Sayers a lot more.

Another recent read - The Third Man - I wouldn't be willing to call a classic at all despite it being written in the 1950s but some of Graham Greene's other books, The End of the Affair for example, I would.

I like Salman Rushdie and while I'd have no problem calling his Midnight's Children a classic, his The Satanic Verses seems more "faddish" than "classic" to me even though I liked it almost as much.



So, what makes some books classics and others merely very good books?

For books from the 19th century or earlier, I just assume if I've heard of it and it sounds interesting, it'll probably be worthy of the title "classic."

But for newer books, particularly those published in the later half of the 20th century, it's a lot more difficult for me to pick out a classic from a non-classic - especially if I haven't read it yet. I often take the "I'll know it when I read it" stance, which isn't very helpful when it comes to selecting books for group reads.


So, my question for you guys is, how do you personally determine what's a classic and what isn't?

Is the age of a book a factor? Awards given? Influence on other writers? Particular subjects or content?

Do you think you can tell right away, or do you think a book has to age a bit to see if it still resonates with readers in later generations?

What sorts of things do you look for?

When sorting through my mother's books on her passing, she had many Romance type novels from the 1930's. Didn't recognize any of the authors, I'm afraid those did not make the classic cut even with their age.

A classic needs to have some enduring quality that makes it a part of the culture of humankind.

I think Kathy's last sentence sums it up nicely. I recently had a conversation with my mother-- what constitutes a classic. I think it was when the group read Harry Potter and I pointed out that a second generation is now reading it. But is the book a classic, having only been published 19 years ago?? Not yet although it has endured thus far.
Flip side. Last year I read A Covenant With Death by Stephen Becker. It came out about the same time as To Kill a Mockingbird and touches on some similiar themes. A hidden gem that I enjoyed but it is not widely read. Is it a classic if it was published in 1964 and only a few people still read it? If I go by Kathy's definition, it is a mixed bag-- human quality, yes; enduring, not necessarily.
I guess we will have to wait another generation on the books published in the last 50 years.

I don’t know of any formula that can be applied to a book and definitively answer the question is this a classic. For me the first factor is a books age, it has to be old enough to have stood the ‘test of time.’ Personally for me a book must be a minimum of forty years old, but I prefer it to be fifty years old or older. Does that make it a classic? Yes and no. In my state a car is considered a classic when it is twenty five years old. At age you can get a license plate declaring the car ‘classic.’ Again, age is not enough. Cars like books take more than age alone to earn the title classic.

My most recent example of age alone making or not making a classic came last year when I read A Question of Sex by Arnold Bennett published in 1900. It’s a humorous one act play that I enjoyed, it was a witty and to fun read, a classic. Not a great earth shattering classic, but still worthy of the name classic. It had several little human traits and characteristics that can be found still today. Since I enjoyed this first work of Mr. Bennett's, last month I read The Human Machine published in 1908. I found the writing to be smooth and enjoyable, but I did not feel this was a work was deserving of the title classic.

While I may class a book as being a classic because of its age, it does take more than age to truly be a true classic. It takes emotion. The book has to make you feel something during and after reading it. For me the more emotion I feel the more memorable is the book. It can be an in depth perfectly written book about the human condition, but if it leaves you unmoved, it’s just an old book. A book that stands the test of time and moves you emotionally is a book I call a classic. Of course a book that makes me cry may make another laugh. Either way when deep emotion is involved the book will stand the test of time simply because it's memorable. Memorable books are talked about for generations.

I intentionally take a broad view of "classic", because conferring that moniker often has been based on criteria influenced largely by the blessing of the applicable majority culture, e.g., the high regard of Western male authors who dominate conversations on a commonly accepted canon. My not having heard of an author may reflect nothing more than the influence of American and British academia, on my education and exposure, for example. GR has been very good for broadening my awareness of classics from all over the world, and from female authors not recognized or promoted by their respective governments.

I don't think anyone can define exactly what makes a classic book and the more I try to pin it down, the more elusive it seems.

I've read before that a classic is a book that has stood the test of time, can be studied in school, or is the sort of book that can be handed down from your parents to your children. All of which are good examples, but not a very comprehensive description.

For me, I think a classic can only be defined as such after a certain elapse of time. Of course this isn't the only requirement, as there's a lot of old books that wouldn't fit the bill, but generally if they've stayed in publication for 50 or 100 years, I think there's a reason for that.

I don't consider newer books to be classics, at least not yet, no matter how well written or worthy they might be for future consideration. A recent book that springs to mind is Autobiography by Morrissey which was somewhat controversially published by Penguin Classics. I think this was done at his insistence though and somewhat as a publishing gimmick. It doesn't usually happen that such recent books get published in the classics section, not even under modern classics until they've been around for some time.

In terms of our group definition of a classic, we stick to date ranges for Old School and New School, to keep things organised. I know we debated our cut off date a couple of years ago, with different opinions on the matter and after going to polls the outcome was to have an end date of 1999. I personally think this is much too late to be considered a classic and would have preferred an earlier cut off around the 1960s or 70s, but it wasn't the majority opinion!

What does everyone else think about classic date ranges? How old should a book be, to be classed a classic? 100 years? 50? 25? Or doesn't it matter. I've noticed in the past that most people don't consider books published within their lifetime, or at least their memory, to be classics. So the older you are, the older you expect your classic to be! Do you think this is true?

Pink wrote: "I don't think anyone can define exactly what makes a classic book and the more I try to pin it down, the more elusive it seems.

I've read before that a classic is a book that has stood the test o..."

Well done, Pink, on this explanation/opinion of classics. I agree that this group's cutoff dates as rules and parameters needed to be implemented (how else would you be able to keep this straight?). I am not of the opinion that classics can't have been written during my lifetime (perhaps because I am older - 57 on Monday!!!) but they certainly need to pass the test for some sort of longevity and continued readership (To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind). I feel that there are more current books that could be classified as "possible" classics but that they still need a bit more time in my opinion in which to be tested (Harry Potter comes to mind here). All-in-all this topic is fairly subjective no matter how you look at it and that is just fine with me. I like the arbitrary dates all of you here have set on the group reads categories.

I sometimes wish/hope/suggest that another category might be started for Modern "Soon-To-Be" Classics that would include books from 2000 to the present day. This category would be totally subjective but would allow for current books, especially award winners, to be read as a group. I realize that the Buddy Read systems takes that into account to a certain extent but an official monthly read might involve more readers in the process. Just some thoughts. ;-)

I agree, I think it needs a few years and has to have a claim to having made a cultural impact to be a classic.

What I think it really interesting about 'classics' is that while most of the time we think of newer books entering the category, there's also quite a lot of older books entering it. Like, in the 70s, feminist criticism made books like Lady Audley's Secret enter the canon (and now they're established classics) when before they were regarded as trash. Same with a lot of early Gothic fiction. I'm interested in where the conception of the 'older' classics will go next.

How important do you think cross-cultural impact is for a book to be a classic?

Omg, Pink, thank you for reminding me of Morrissey and his horrid book, that was the most ridiculous publishing stunt and I can't believe Penguin actually went for it!

I assume that we are looking at an objective line of demarkation for "Classic, "so 50 years is the minimum time I've always used. That seems (to me) to be the least amount of time necessary to judge the influence a work has had on cultural and literary aesthetics. There are exceptions, of course, that prove the rule, but a fifty-year line works for me.

I do recognize why younger people would consider books like the Harry Potter series and such classics, but when one's historical perspective extends no further than one's lifetime, such judgments are the result. I have an affection for the very first Stephen King book I ever read (The Shining), but I falter at calling it anything other than a genre/personal classic.

I've been uncomfortable with some of the choices I've made in the Bingo Challenge and will probably change some.

I don't read enough "non-classics" to properly join in here
having said that, on the subject of age
I have been working from the Guardian 1000 list and have read about 200 books, and have been quite careful about reading a fair spread time-wise
I just did a quick reckon-up of my average rating (out of 10) with the following results:
pre-1900: 40 books, average rating = 7.1
1900-1950: 55 books, average rating = 7.9
1950-2000: 80 books, average rating = 8.4
there could be many reasons for the above, but I honestly think that the modern classics are just better written full stop.
obviously there is a "standing on the shoulders of giants" aspect, where modern work has built on older stuff and pushed the envelope further, both stylistically and content-wise.

Looking at individual decades, the 1990s have yielded me the highest average rating!
Underworld, Trainspotting, The Information, The Restraint Of Beasts, High Fidelity, Morvern Callar, The Virgin Suicides, Death And The Penguin... all titles that I look forward to multiply re-reading in future which I think is one definition of a classic?

How does popularity affect a book becoming a classic? Negative popularity doesn't always prohibit a book from attaining classic status? I am thinking of The Awakening by Kate Chopin. When it was published it was ridiculed and mostly ignored. I read that it possibly ended her writing career. Yet with societies changing attitudes toward what women’s roles should or should not be, this book is now considered, at least by me, a great classic. Can negative popularity at the time of publishing stop an otherwise excellent book from becoming a classic?

My next question about popularity can only be answered with speculation. Is a wildly popular modern book guaranteed classic status in 50 years? I’ll not use Harry Potter as my example. I’ll ask about the book Twilight. This book has been rated by 3,744,091 Goodreads members, but only has a 3.57 rating. However, Goodreads Listopia has it listed as the fifth best book of all time. There are 46,496 books on this list and Twilight is number five. Listopia also lists it having won 24 separate awards. So, does this book and others (Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc.) that are huge cultural favorites guarantee them future classic status?

There's a handful from the 70s and 80s that I'd call classics and that goes up dramatically once I get as far back as the 60s. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any books from the 90s or later that I'd call classic already.


I've noticed that the older a book is, the more easy it is for me to call it a classic just because I enjoyed it.

And, of course, the older a book is, the easier it is to judge how much it appeals to later generations and how much influence it held over later authors.

The newer books, I'm a lot more analytical about and there's usually some specific component that pushes me to call it a classic. Did the author do some really neat literary trick? Capture a particular moment in history really, really well? Etc. Obviously this is biased more towards literary fiction rather than popular fiction.

And even then, I still feel like there should be at least a couple of decades for the hype around books to settle a bit and see if it feels overly dated or gimmicky too quickly.

Bob wrote: "How does popularity affect a book becoming a classic? Negative popularity doesn't always prohibit a book from attaining classic status? I am thinking of The Awakening by [author:Kate C..."

Other than death and taxes, guarantees are in rare supply.

The HP series I anticipate will become a children's classic, at minimum. Twilight, book one, may have the staying power but could just as easily fall off in popularity in 20-30 years. There are plenty of copies in circulation so why anyone would buy new (other than e-books) is beyond me.

Bob wrote: "How does popularity affect a book becoming a classic? ..."

I think negative popularity requires something to happen for a book to become classic - societal changes, influential people plugging it, etc.

Positive popularity - well, it depends. I hope Twilight is just a blip on the radar. Most of the people I know in real life that really loved it weren't avid readers.

If something's popular, though, I think people are a lot more likely to hand it off to their friends to read, or pass it along to their kids with a "When I was your age, this was my favorite." But that still requires some sort of timeless quality to it for that cycle to keep going. If the kids roll their eyes and say "Mom! I've read a million books about vampires!" then its popularity when it was published really doesn't mean much in the long term.

I like the group categories for Classics.. though '99 does seem too recent to be a Classic.
For me it has to be older than 50 years or thereabouts with an emotional impact and I think that certain something... the popularity does not matter much... some of the classics I just can't read(for the present) and some older book which are not much read now I have liked a lot..

so.. for me it is a matter of something just being right after the age and the emotional impact...

Twilight, I liked when I read it..but now it just feels flat .. though the perfect perfection has some nostalgia of college days associated with it for me...sharing books and booklinks.
it feels more 'faddish'(?)

but Harry Potter Boxset is very different from Hunger games and the rest ..it just feels 'Classic' to me.... very relatable and very complex story.. there are so many stories you can explore within...

I guess the definition of Classic is somewhat subjective.

I've noticed that the older a book is, the more easy it is for me to call it a classic just because I enjoyed it.

true

Carol wrote: "Bob wrote: "How does popularity affect a book becoming a classic? Negative popularity doesn't always prohibit a book from attaining classic status? I am thinking of The Awakening by [a..."

this I do agree. I read it after borrowing from my friend.
Investing in Classics is one thing.

I realize that several of you love the Harry Potter series. I thought it was fun at the time and there is some nostalgic emotions still there for me (as I read it with my children), but to me it is not a classic. However you feel about it, I thought this was an interesting article:

Children fall out of love with Harry Potter and Asterix
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/bo...

I guess that I agree with Elena that "I guess the definition of Classic is somewhat subjective." and " the emotional impact..."

So I don't imagine that everyone will ever agree on what is a true classic. Too much emotion involved in some books -- and I mean that as a good thing. It is wonderful that books can take us places emotional and otherwise.

Happy Reading all.

When it comes to age my cut-off date is 60 years. In cultural-history you talk about one generation being 30 years, so 60 is two generations.

But I agree with majority here that it's not enough just to be old. I think the problem with defining a "classic" is that reading is a very subjectiv task. We get very defensive over the books we like, and I see "snob" and similar terms being thrown around if anyone doesn't like what we like.

Personally I do think you can talk about literature as a craft, and in that you have a good example of the craft and a bad example of the craft. My personal oppinion is that a "classic" is an old book that is a good example of the literary craft, regardless of my personal oppinion of the book. I've tried to read Lord of the Rings, but couldn't because it didn't appeal to me. That doesn't mean it's not a good literary craft.

But this can be a touchy subject to many, because very often it's not the books with a high literary craftmanship that is on the best seller. Very often it's the opposite. Trying to explore lesser known classics I often come over authors who were best seller in their time, but completley unknown today. Sometimes it's because of something outside the book, sometimes it's because the books aren't that good. Yet they were best sellers. Like Twillight and 50 Shades of Grey today. People do love them, but that is not the same as a book having a high literary craftmanship. Loving a book and a book being "good" is not the same.

That being said, I also enjoy the fact that there is a discussion now about what is considered good craftmanship, which has been dominated by white-cis-straight-englishspeaking men. We should always be able to talk about what it means that a book is "objectively good", without ignoring the possiblity of such a thing excisting.

Lesserknowngems -- I love your thoughts. Thank you.

I feel like maybe a classic is a book that no one feels entitled to criticise any more because it has become so universally acknowledge/established in the culture. I noticed that a lot of people are saying 'I don't like _______ but I can see that it's a good book'. You don't see anyone saying 'yeah, it's a classic, but it's an awful book'. People only feel compelled to discuss why the classics are good, not challenge them. I'd say it's a book whose cultural authority shapes individual opinion before you even open it.

Anna wrote: "I feel like maybe a classic is a book that no one feels entitled to criticise any more because it has become so universally acknowledge/established in the culture. I noticed that a lot of people ar..."

Just to play devils advocate, I see and enjoy much challenging of sacred cows on this platform, and enjoy the details of those arguments (not so much the bald, I enjoy X or I don't like Y).

More to your point, one of the categories of novels I find most interesting are those which were at one time considered classics but then subsequently fall out of favor or become deemed unworthy of being considered "good literature." Dreiser's works are currently disdained by academics and little read. Give it another fifty years and readers also will no doubt say, "who?" Such a shame, IMO.

-signed, Hater of both Moby Dick and Catch-22, don't see what others do in any Pynchon novel, and Infinite Jest is not on my TBR :)

Anna wrote: "I feel like maybe a classic is a book that no one feels entitled to criticise any more because it has become so universally acknowledge/established in the culture. I noticed that a lot of people ar..."

Not all classics are considered good. Some people seem to have predetermined belief that some classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird or Huckleberry Finn are bad. They read these books and prove to themselves they were right. In the case of the two books mentioned many dislike the way race relations are portrayed and both books use the “N” word. As you can see there is such a taboo about the word I can’t write it for fear of retribution. I have seen articles that basically say for the good of society these books need to be rewritten. Not banned, that would be wrong. They might be portrayed as intolerant. Better to be rewritten so that they are no longer offensive. Between the choice of rewritten or banned, I’d rather see them banned.

Popularity and ratings on GR aren't much of an indicator because the books are read by specific audiences. For young people who read Twilight, they may think it a terrific book. I would never even read a sentence of it based on what I have heard about it. A film critic gave an example like this some years ago that someone may say Titanic is the best film they've ever seen and that could be true for them because they haven't seen many movies in their lifetime. Later in life they may have a different view.

You see the same phenomenon if you look at reviews of books that are part of a series. Mostly the later books in the series will have higher and higher ratings. I don't think it's because they are better but because the real fans are the ones who keep reading the series. Anyone who was indifferent or displeased will drop out.

I agree that authors go in and out of favor and get rediscovered. The feminist wave of the 1970's helped put some of the books like Awakening and Their Eyes Were Watching Godback in the public consciousness.

Bob wrote: "Anna wrote: "I feel like maybe a classic is a book that no one feels entitled to criticise any more because it has become so universally acknowledge/established in the culture. I noticed that a lot..."

true..I hate this trend of rewriting the books..editing the offensive material..better not to read the books that you are not comfortable with..you shouldn't change something written by another person..

The best artists are those who have mass
appeal. What makes a work great is the ability to entertain and move the masses. Take Tolstoy and Dickens - immensely popular novelists in their day (their serialized novels are similar to great tv shows like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or the Wire). Shakespeare, Homer, and Sophocles - entertainers first and foremost. Mozart, Beethoven, and Verdi are great not because they wrote for themselves but because they were aware of their audiences and were immensely popular.

The best artists (i.e. those we call the greatest -
Shakespeare, Mozart, and Hitchcock) are those who do control and shape their audiences. In fact, the greatest work is one that
manipulates its audience more than any other work all while not
letting the audience see that it is being manipulated. Here are some examples:

Shakespeare's Hamlet. Imagine going into the theater to watch the
play for the first time in England in early 1600's. First you get a
scene at night with a ghost coming in and some guards tell you that Denmark is in trouble. The next scene takes us to the king's court - lit and beautiful. The King begins talking. He is at the center of the stage. As the scene begins, the audience
is on the side of the king (considering that we just heard that
Denmark is in trouble) and then we notice that in the back, dressed all in black (in sharp contrast to the king) is the most famous actor in all of London. The king starts to annoy you and then . . . the famous actor . . . makes fun of him. The entire audience shifts and jumps on the board, completely disregarding monarchy and order that it has been taught to love. That, my friend is pure shaping of audience.

Take Mozart's serenade for the winds K. 361(for this example I'll
use Salieri's words from Amadeus to explain what Mozart does to the audience). We first hear the music and the "beginning [is] simple, almost comic. Just a pulse - bassoons and basset horns - like a rusty squeezebox." It seems to us plain and silly even. Nothing special. It sets our expectations low. "Then suddenly - high above it - an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight!"
Mozart completely pulled the rug out from under us. He led us to
expect one thing and then out of nowhere brought this surpise. I
guarantee you that everyone in the audince felt the same thing
listening to that song - everyone was shaped just as Mozart had
wanted it.

Take Hitchcock's Psycho. Bates' "mother" has just killed our heroine (the heroine of the story who we've been following for the past 45 minutes) She's killed and what does Hitchcock do next. He brings in Bates, who starts to cover up the murder!! At first we feel a bit uneasy (especially when Bates unknowingly takes the $40,000 we've been following for the past 45 minutes and tosses them in the trunk - the money plot was a red herring). Then Bates pushes the car into the swamp. Here is Hitchcock the master - he makes the car start sinking and then stop midway! The audience is frozen - they want the car to sink!!! A few seconds later, it does sink and we feel RELIEF.
Hitchcock has just shaped his audience into sympathizing with what is essentially the villain. We completely switch sides.

Originality in the story does not matter. Of Shakespeare 37 plays, 35 came from
preexisting sources.

I'd like to mention PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.

Opening the novel for the first time (or even watching the film) we
are set up to expect and hope for two main things: 1) that Jane will end up with Bingley and 2) that Elizabeth will end up with Darcy.

Based on the conventions of the 19th century novel, the reader
pretty much expects this to be the outcome once they first meet
(this is true even for Darcy and Elizabeth).

Had Darcy and Bingley not ended up with Elizabeth
and Jane, the reader would have been quite surprised. I suspect that some people would even argue that it is a good ending because it is more realistic and not sentimental. But, you're absolutely right - it would be very unsatisfying. Where's the fun in that?

So what does Austen do? She takes both relationships - makes us
think they're going somewhere - and then breaks them up. Bingley's breakup comes out of nowhere. Darcy's breakup does not shock us as much but Austen's not done yet. She brings Darcy and Elizabeth together and Darcy confesses his love to her!!! We think - of course, here they will definitely come together. But no - Austen makes Elizabeth reject him! How's that for shocking. Everything that we expected to occur didn't - now are expectations are set for not expecting them to end up together (I think that the Wickham and Collins subplots add to the distraction - we think that Lizzy will end up with one of them). In the end, what happens is a surprise after all because the couples we wanted to end up together - and then thought would not end up together - do end up as we had hoped.
Satisafying AND full of twist. I suspect that the twists make it as
satisfying as it is.

Similar things occur with SHAKESPEARE'S COMEDIES:
I'll take Midsummer Night's Dream as my example since it shares many characteristics with Shakespeare's other comedies. We start the play with 4 couples (the fairy king and queen, Theseus and his bride, Lysander, Hermia, Helena, and Demetrius). Again, we KNOW that the couples will end up together. We hope that the couples will end up together. Yet time and time again Shakespeare throws one twist after another to make us think that everything we expect will not happen:

Titania is meant to be with the fairy king but Buttom gets thrown in the loop and sure enough, she seems to be happy with him. Hermia and Lysender must end up together but Demetrius is in love with Hermia and Helena is in love with Demetrius. It's clear what SHOULD happen but it's definately not clear HOW it's going to happen. Puck is supposed to fix everything (make Demetrius love Helena but HE SCREWS IT UP and again we're thrown off track. Thus, when the expected ending comes, it is still satisfying.

Instead of going from point A to the expected point B, we detour
through dozens of points first. Very exciting for the audience.

Definitely I think "stood the test of time" applies, but there is another important factor, which is hard to pinpoint. I think of it as "quality" or "value." (Anyone read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values?)

It's like classic clothes. There is a kind of science behind them--line and form and style or whatever. That's why they last.

The question is who decides a book is quality? Scholars or writers or critics? I think it's we the readers who decide, so we'll have differing opinions. But that's why we love booklists and award histories and recommendations I guess!

siriusedward wrote: "Bob wrote: "Anna wrote: "I feel like maybe a classic is a book that no one feels entitled to criticise any more because it has become so universally acknowledge/established in the culture. I notice..."

Honestly I think that depends on what is offensive, it's role in the story and what it means to re-write. Taking out the N* word from To kill a Mockingbird, a book about race-relations would change the books essence. I do remember reading Atticus explaining the diffrence between ne* and ni*, and feeling quite uncomfortable, but I do get it's a part of the story and time as a whole. Taking that away is taking away from what the story is trying to tell us, and what we as modern readers might get out of the story. But take a bookseries like Pippi Longstocking. She lived alone while her father was out at sea. In the original story he is called "The king of the N*". This was seen as offensive, and was later re-written to be "King of the Southern Islands" (Or A Southern Island). This re-write doesn't take anything away from what the book is trying to say (That her father is King of an island) or his role in the bookseries. Actually not changing this would takes away from the bookseries and him as a character due to our modern understanding and relationship with that word. Personally I don't mind these kinds of re-writes because it makes it possible for new generations to actually enjoy these books in their original intent (for fun), without anything getting lost.

Lesserknowngems wrote: "This re-write doesn't take anything away from what the book is trying to say (That her father is King of an island) or his role in the bookseries. ..."

And Then There Were None would be another example. Replacing one rhyme with another and one set of figurines for another really makes no difference in the context of the book.

It definitely does change things for books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huck Finn, though and I'd argue against altering either of those.


The finer line comes when the use of such words is obviously meant to be demeaning and derogatory way (beyond the mere use of the word, that is) - but perhaps not to the extent that the current use of the word means. Then would you change it or not? My recent read, Wise Blood has that word every dozen pages or so. Some of them could easily be swapped out for a more neutral word with no real effect - but others are clearly meant to an insult. Would you change them all, regardless? Some? None? I'd personally vote for none in that case. Anything else, and you'd risk changing the meaning.

Lesserknowngems wrote: "siriusedward wrote: "Bob wrote: "Anna wrote: "I feel like maybe a classic is a book that no one feels entitled to criticise any more because it has become so universally acknowledge/established in ..."

I hear you and don’t disagree that some things can be changed with no effect on the story. Your example with the Pippi Longstocking wording being changed sounds like a simple common sense fix. I still think it’s better and safer to stick with the author’s original wording. After all who decides what is offensive. When it comes to words and symbols can parity be achieved? With tempers flaring across the country I was wondering this morning about symbols. Is the Black Panther raised fist any different than the letters KKK? For me, both are despicable. However, I believe that in this country both have the right to speak. Who decides? Each individual hearing the message has to make up their own mind. So let me read a book the way it was written and I’ll decide for myself is it chicken salad or chicken sh**.

Melanti - Bob - Personally I don't think you generally can talk about a general rule. We as a society are more complex than that, especially when it comes to systematic dicrimination (not just of race). That's what I found so facinating when reading the scene where Atticus explains the difference between Ni* which is bad, and Ne* which is acceptable and similar in his eyes to Black or African-American. Of course that's not how the word is understood today at all. That's one of the difficulties with reading historical books as how do we know what the author actually intended (Would Lee have used the word Black if she had placed the action in todays society, or omitted this scene all together because we as modern readers don't really seperate those two words as Atticus does). In one sense it would be safer, as you point out Bob, to just stick to the authors original wording, but the reality is that by doing that a lot of works are lost to us, because we as modern readers (or any kind of readers) can't dissconect from the culture that we grew up in. An article called Shakespeare in the Bush really higlights this when an American author tries to explain Hamlet to members of the Tiv tribe, a tribe that have no concept of ghosts or why marrying your dead husband's brother could be a bad thing.

Astrid Lindgren and Harper Lee were probably racist by our standards, because it's we as a society that decide what is offensive. But it's also easy to dismiss Lindgren and Lee as not being real racist and just products of their time. And considering Lindgren wrote children's literature it's much easier to just change the wording, because while I do think we can and should talk about privledge and discremination to children, not changing the wording means these books can't be anything but oppertunity to talk about these things.

I heard some people want a soon-to-be- classics category. It would be great. The Fault in Our Stars and Divergent are great and I bet will still have staying power. Those are just a few that come to mind.

This is a good question. On the first day of my literature classes I usually give my students "The Five Marks of a Classic" as outlined by Jeffrey Brenzel (Dean of Undergraduate Admissions at Yale University) in his lecture "The Essential Value of a Classic Education" (2011):

1. It addresses Permanent Universal Concerns.
2. It’s a Game Changer: it shifts perspectives.
3. It Influences Other Great Works.
4. It’s Respected by Experts: generations of the best readers and expert critics.
5. It’s Challenging and Rewarding: no pain, no gain.

Lesserknowngems wrote: "Melanti - Bob - Personally I don't think you generally can talk about a general rule. We as a society are more complex than that, especially when it comes to systematic dicrimination (not just of r..."

I dislike the political turn our discussion is taking, but I’ll take a stab at responding to your post. It seems to be getting away from the topic of ‘what makes a classic a classic.’ It’s hard to avoid the subject, since every time, a classic is threatened with revision or banning, politics is very much in play. A book will not be revised or banned unless a group of individuals, using political pressure come together seeking the goal of revising or banning.

If I correctly understand your position, you see little harm in revising an author’s choice of words for the sake of political correctness. I am of the opposite opinion, I want the author’s choice of words left alone. I think a free society can handle being offended. After all who decides? The Peoples Committee for the Correction of Literature. Would you trust me to be a member of such a committee? Of course you wouldn’t, we’re from different parts of the political spectrum. You would be right not to trust me any more than I would trust you. So, we are left with the individual, each of us, having to decide for ourselves what we like and what we dislike. I don’t have the wisdom to say that if Harper Lee were writing TKAM today she would substitute the word Black for the “N” word. The fact is she didn’t and we are left with the words she did choose. I don’t know if she was a racist. If she was, she wasn’t a very good racist, since she wrote an exceptionally good book pointing out the inequalities face by Black Americans in the time the book takes place.

As for the reality of not sticking to the authors original wording because we as modern readers can’t disconnect from the culture we grew up in. I'm not sure I understand your point. When you use the example of Shakespeare in the Bush, it seems like an issue of translation not revision. There is a huge difference between translating a book and rewriting the content because some may take offense. Les Miserable is one of the best books I have ever read. But like the Bushmen with Shakespeare I didn’t get a pure experience. I don’t think I got every nuance, every emotion, and every detail Hugo intended because I can’t read French. Even if I could, not being a native, I would still most likely still miss some of the subtle nuance. Is the translator rewriting the book? Yes, but we are trusting the translator to capture the authors truest intentions. Which is much different than someone changing a book written in their native language because some people don’t like an author’s choice of words.

Bob, I think you've given a very good example in Les Miserables. Because the translator surely tried to make it read to you, in English, the same as it would to a native French speaker living in this day, and therefore avoided too modern-looking words and used a fair proportion of slightly dated ones, exactly as it probably reads in French today. So even in the case of translation, revision would be frowned upon.

Bob wrote: "Lesserknowngems wrote: "Melanti - Bob - Personally I don't think you generally can talk about a general rule. We as a society are more complex than that, especially when it comes to systematic dicr..."

I agree with you in regard to it becoming political, but then again that raises a question if you can have this discussion without it also being a part of the political sphere. Banning books and sensorship are aspects used in politics. Education and which books and what kind of books are taught are political aspects. Very often the books that have staying power, the books we know about, aren't the books that were populare at the time, but the books that were picked up and taught in a countries system of education. That's how they became canon. Going back to my earlier argument, populare does not equal good or staying power.

When it comes back to re-writing, what I tried to comunicate is that you can't go by one rule. In general I think re-writing books can bring their own problems as well. And I was refering to the fact that different words do have different connetations based in culture that isn't as simple as translating it word for word, as with the two different meanings with NI and NE in TKAM, where there is no difference in meaning for modern sensebility.

But, the reality is that when it comes to children's literature (geared at young children), because they are children's literature, the rules are a bit diffrent because either you have to ignore the discrimination (and therefore teach them that it's fine that certain groups are talked about in a demeaning way,) or that has to be the focus of what you talk about. It becomes the dicrimination book. That has to do with where children are in their developmental stage.

I see that people are making an argument for a will-be-classics reading, and I do find that might be fun or might be a horrible catastrophy. Because will any book be up for a will-be-classic nomination, as with the other classical nomination as long as the age fits, or will there have to be criteria, and who then decideds and judges the book based on their criteria? Going back to what and who gets to decide which books are "classics".

Lesserknowngems wrote: "when it comes to children's literature (geared at young children), because they are children's literature, the rules are a bit diffrent..."

Hi Lesserknowngems,

I must strongly disagree with you. We're talking about changing someone else's thoughts and words. No one has the right to change an author's thoughts and words except the author. If the author is dead, then there is no one with the moral right to change anything. If even one word is changed, then it is no longer the book that author wrote. It is then a cheat and a lie and a violation of the author's intellectual property.

If I have a mark on my face that you don't like, can you surgically excise it against my will so that my face is more pleasing to your eyes? No, you cannot because it's my face. You have the right to not look at my face, but you don't have the right to carve it up to suit yourself. If a reader doesn't like an author's thoughts and words, then the reader should not read the author's book.

Susan wrote: "Lesserknowngems wrote: "when it comes to children's literature (geared at young children), because they are children's literature, the rules are a bit diffrent..."

Hi Lesserknowngems,

I must stro..."

Well, that was very well said Susan.

Susan wrote: "Lesserknowngems wrote: "when it comes to children's literature (geared at young children), because they are children's literature, the rules are a bit diffrent..."

Hi Lesserknowngems,

I must stro..."

Hi Susan,

I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with your most eloquently stated opinions on this topic - however extreme the analogy came across as being. The author, any author, writes the book that they want to write (punctuation and all) and unless there are typos, it is my opinion that changing anything that author has written changes what that author chose/chooses to say. I do feel, however, that if people choose to read the altered version of a book that it is their choice to do so. I think it should be clearly stated that the book, written as the author intended it to be written, has been altered and leave it to the reader to decide if they want to read it. Perhaps, if people stop purchasing these altered books, people will stop bastardizing (too strong a word?) them. I am sure that this subject has detractors on both sides and will probably spark much debate but I wanted to add my support and two cents nonetheless.

In terms of changing words in books, I don't think it should happen. For children's books that might be lost to a younger generation if they're not able to be cleaned up for a modern palate, I'd prefer they weren't read at all than changed. It's too hard to decide where those changes should be made, who should make them etc and then it can quickly drift into censorship.

On a similar note about making changes to books. I'm also heavily against books being published after an authors death. I don't care if they have a house full of wonderful notes, or manuscripts, if they chose not to publish in their lifetime, then we don't know if we're getting a version of a book that they'd have been happy to put out, or one that they had no intention of anyone ever seeing. There are several authors works, most notably Hemingway, whose posthumous books I won't read. I'm also very against the publishing of Go set a Watchman for similar reasons, but debating that book can open up a whole new can of worms!

As for having a 'future classic' group read, I'd personally be against extending any group reads beyond 1999. If anything I'd want to scale that date back! I think it would be far too complex to decide which modern books are eligible as a future classic or not. It would be down to personal interpretation and one person may argue a books worthiness when others disagree, so what would happen then? We'd just have to allow any books onto the list, no matter how recent. At least with a 1999 cut off those books have been around for almost 20 years now and so time has already decided to an extent if they have staying power. I'd fear that moving that date forward or having a 'future classics' group read category would move away from our classics focus as a group, which is really about reading those older books! I think other groups or buddy reads should suffice for more modern reading.

It's fine. I get that people don't agree with me and I won't talk about it further. I felt the way a lot of people here feel, untill I followed the Pippi Longstocking discussion in Sweden a few years back (which got a lot more heated than here), and it changed my mind. We'll just agree to disagree.

Pink - I can see your case about things being published posthumous, but what are your stance on publishing letters and stuff like that? On one hand letter writing does give us a wonderful insight into how the world was at the time the letters were written, especially for women whom often didn't have other outlets to talk about their experience of life, and into the writers of the letters, but then again famous writers like Jane Austen never intended (as far as we know) for her letters to be published the same way her novels where.

Pink wrote: "... I'd prefer they weren't read at all than changed. It's too hard to decide where those changes should be made, who should make them etc and then it can quickly drift into censorship. ..."

The first change made is already censorship. And there would be no end to the changes. We know what offends people in 2017. But what will offend people in 2027? What will offend people in 2067? In a hundred years, a book may barely resemble what the author actually wrote. George Orwell created a nightmare world where history was constantly being rewritten to suit the present. What we’re talking about here is the same thing.

Lesserknowngems, there's no problem expressing a different opinion. We can't all agree on everything.

Ah letters are a good point, as I do enjoy reading letter collections. My main problem with posthumous works of fiction, is we can't know how close to being finished, edited, rewritten, or abandoned these works were and they may not be very good representations of their work. With letters, you know you're probably getting something that wasn't meant for publication or other eyes, but a personal insight into their thoughts and lives. I'm on the fence about whether it's okay if I really think about it, but I suppose I am. Maybe I'd have less problems with posthumously published work if it was clearly presented as such, rather than just another book in their cannon. I'll have to give this some more thought.

Pink wrote: "In terms of changing words in books, I don't think it should happen....As for having a 'future classic' group read, I'd personally be against extending any group reads beyond 1999 ..."

I agree with every word of your post!! Especially sticking to the 5 reading categories we currently have.

Lesserknowngems wrote: "It's fine. I get that people don't agree with me and I won't talk about it further. ..."

You hold and expressed an honest opinion, and shared it. Pink is right many times in a discussion no agreement is achieved. Learning and understanding can be achieved, that's why most of us are here. I know how you feel about a subject and I learned from it. Thank you for sharing.

Pink wrote: "Ah letters are a good point, as I do enjoy reading letter collections. . ..."

I guess I come down on the pro side of publishing letters. Letters published posthumously are historical. The author placed him/her self in the public domain when they choose to write for profit. Letters can help with understanding how and why they wrote in a particular manner. This is especially true when discussing classics.

Susan wrote: "Pink wrote: "... I'd prefer they weren't read at all than changed. It's too hard to decide where those changes should be made, who should make them etc and then it can quickly drift into censorship..."

I think that is a good point, Susan, and where I fall on this issue too. To me, we're venturing into the land of censorship when we start altering an author's words without permission. Yes, there are going to be things in older books that don't mesh well with modern sensibilities. Sometimes language changes and words carry different meanings and connotations. But a well-written foreword or other annotation can explain the historical context and so can a knowledgeable parent or teacher. To Kill a Mockingbird was required reading for me in 8th and 9th grade in the mid 1990s. Both times, we discussed the historical context before beginning, and I don't recall any student in any class struggling with that, and the offensive language in the book didn't dominate the discussion. I think sometimes adults don't give kids enough credit; they can handle more than some might think.

I just started reading the essays in the collection Why Read the Classics? by Italo Calvino. The first essay addresses the title question. He begins by putting forth definitions of classics listing 14 definitions. I won't list all 14, but here are a few that interested me.

3. The classics are books which exercise a particular influence, both when they imprint themselves on our imagination as unforgettable, and when they hide in the layers of memory disguised as the individual's or the collective unconscious.

4. A classic is a book which with each rereading offers much of a sense of discovery as the first reading.

6. A classic is a book which has never exhausted all it has to say to its readers.

7. The classics are those books which come to us bearing the aura of previous interpretations, and trailing behind them the traces they have left in the culture or cultures (or just in the languages and customs) through which they have passed.

9. Classics are books which, the more we think we know them through hearsay, the more original, unexpected, and innovative we find them when we actually read them.

He ended by noting that we cannot, as some in the ancient world were able to do, spend all of our days sitting around reading classics. He wrote,

All that can be done is for each of us to invent our own ideal library of our classics; and I would say that one half of it should consist of books we have read and that have meant something for us, and the other half of books which we intend to read and which we suppose might mean something to us. We should also leave a section of empty spaces for surprises and chance discoveries.

And finally he noted that he should rewrite the essay

so that people do not believe that the classics must be read because they serve some purpose. The only reason that can be adduced in their favour is that reading the classics is always better than not reading them.

Yes, I would have to agree and definitely can't say it better myself.

Laurie, that sounds like a great book. If you "recommend it" to me I can use it for bingo. But I want to read it anyway. The first two definitions you list are what make books classics for me. Especially finding something new in each rereading. I have read House of the Spirits four times and counting and have found something new each time and still love it.

Laurie wrote: "I just started reading the essays in the collection Why Read the Classics? by Italo Calvino. The first essay addresses the title question. He begins by putting forth def..."

I remember reading that a long time ago, Laurie. You pulled out some great points. I love, love, love #6--seems to kind of sum it up.

Brina wrote: "Laurie, that sounds like a great book. If you "recommend it" to me I can use it for bingo. But I want to read it anyway. The first two definitions you list are what make books classics for me. Espe..."

Consider it recommended. Although I have seen some reviews that say the first essay is the best, I hope to find the remaining essays worthwhile.

Bob wrote: "Lesserknowngems wrote: "Melanti - Bob - Personally I don't think you generally can talk about a general rule. We as a society are more complex than that, especially when it comes to systematic dicr..."

I agree with Bob , editing with the author present is one thing.. but to change even a word to suit our present attitude is another..it is just not right...

we should rather realize that just the words in a book isn't rascism...esp. when the whole book is okay..
sometimes the authors themselves are very rascist or their books very insulting to a particular community or nation or race...and it might be hard to read such books.. I just avoid them.. if I just can't tolerate it..I stop reading it..still I had rather the book not be changed ..It would have been much better if such a thing were not written but since it is..I would just avoid reading it..
for me Lolita is such a book... I do not want to sympathise with the narrator... I had just rather avoid the book altogether..

Pink wrote: "In terms of changing words in books, I don't think it should happen. For children's books that might be lost to a younger generation if they're not able to be cleaned up for a modern palate, I'd pr..."

I agree Pink, I won't read such books(fiction) either esp. when the author has told to destroy it or to not publish.It feels like disrespecting the author and using them for gain(by those who published suck work).The Trial comes to mind.

I hate the unfinished books being finished by others too.

you are right Sarah.kids are not given enough credit.they can handle things better than we think esp. if we explain(?) or guide(?) them..or discuss the book with them .

Beautiful quotes from the book Laurie.

And I

Thanks Laurie, for that nice summary! :) I agree. And yes, I don't think reading classics should be considered a must. It's a want. The desire to read to open your mind, be introduced to new worlds and ideas, and discover experiences and journeys that you otherwise wouldn't have in the one place, or in the present, or in a lifetime.

I find that many classics are worth reading. Maybe not all because they tend to be diverse and we all have differing tastes. But somehow I feel like with certain classics, there's an allure or instinct to read them, even if nobody has recommended it. And usually the time I spend reading a classic is not a waste - it works out that way because many others have spent time reading it before you have spent the time to read it. Time is precious. The fact is that they have endured over a long period of time and the fact that many have given their time to such a book, is a huge recommendation in itself. Classics are reliable in that sense. But you don't really dwell on that. We take it for granted that we can crack open these books and find them worthwhile. And even when you don't really like or get a book, you ponder over what it offers and why so many have liked it, why it was so influential. And you may even reconsider reading it down the track and reassessing your own opinion.