Scribbler discussion

What makes a book a classic? The reason I ask is that I've read books described as a classic which I didn't enjoy. Now, does that mean it's a classic? What is the definition? "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a classic. But I've read the book and I didn't think it was that good. To me it is considered a classic because it has good intentions and its heart is in the right place. "Sons and Lovers" is another. It's been described by various people as one of the best books ever written (one them was the author!). But when I read it I could not see how it justified such praise. I've read books simply because I've been told they were classics and I assumed that it meant they were worth reading but all too often they weren't. I read them and forgot all about them the minute I had put them back on the bookshelf. Sometimes I've read them again and still they meant nothing. I forgot everything I had just read. And how many classic are the out there which are no longer read. Are they still classics too?

Well, I'm not exactly an expert, considering that I'm a fourteen year old girl who doesn't like to read what she's told to, but I agree that whether or not a book is a classic depends somewhat on perspective and opinion...

My parents refuse to believe that anything written after a certain time is a classic. But surely there can be more modern classics, too. And, in the future, some modern books will probably be considered classics too. And I do agree that most classics will be books written a couple of centuries ago, by great authors who are widely renowned today. But that doesn't mean that modern books are all trashy and meaningless. It also doesn't mean that any book written in the 1800s is automatically a classic. Sure, old books look impressive, but not all of them actually have much literary value.

It's a pretty interesting topic :) I've complained about it pretty often when my parents and teachers have tried to make me read more "classics." I'm not opposed to them in general - I loved books like Little Women (when I was younger), To Kill a Mockingbird and 1984, but some books (like Pride and Prejudice)... Well, it didn't really matter whether they looked impressive, or whether they were considered great, I just didn't enjoy them.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this actually answered any of your questions... It was more of just a rant, but... Oh well.

So you admit it? You're not an expert. So what? You don't have to be. You don't owe the author of a book you read and didn't like anything. My parents/ Teachers also told me to read "classics". And they knew they were classics because it said so on the cover. A classic is a book that you think could have written yourelf. A book that was written for you alone. So for me a classic is: "What now little man" and "The Leopard" and "Buddenbrooks" but also "bad" books like the war books written by Sven Hassel. So what books should you read? Books that are about things or people that interest you. If you like music read books about music. And if you are interested in Marie Curie read books about her.

These are some really interesting points. I, too, have been told to read more "classics," and I think what people are really advising me to do is to expand my thinking and look at more genres, not just things like young adult dystopias or romances. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with these things; just that they can start to get dull and that's why I should make sure to challenge myself.

Sure, I think that not all classics are for everyone. Each person has there own taste when it comes to reading. However, I also think that books are labeled as "classics" for a reason, and that means that maybe we should give them a chance. I'm not saying that there aren't little-known books that are amazing, or "classics" that are bad. Looking back, I no longer like Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House in the Big Woods, Little House on the Prairie, etc. (though I think I did when I was younger). There are some elements of it I really don't like on principle, and others that make it just kind of boring. Nevertheless, I understand why people might find it useful to read and be aware of.

So, overall, I think each person has their own definition of what a classic is, and I'm not yet sure of mine. But because there are some highly praised books that are often considered "classics," maybe they're worth a try. And yes, I realize I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here, since I myself resist reading classics sometimes :) But I'm working on it!!

Working on it is fun...even if you are disappointed!
The reason why I posed this question is that too many critics have led me by my nose too often & too far! Too often I've read their recommendations and I've thought..."Hu? This is a classic? You're joking!" Because it seems to me they, the critics, seem to think that if a writer can demonstrate; originality, imagination and intelligence (and wit) then they have written a "great" book. But that is an intellectual assessment whereas, I think, most readers judge a book emotionally. Your mum's chicken soup is always going to be your favourite even if it's not the best.