What makes a classic a classic?
Just saw this and I thought it was a nice short article about what is required to make a piece of literature a classic.
I don't know about you but I always thought a piece of literature qualified as classic if it held up over time. I see they mention that in this article. I've always wondered what SF classics might become plain-ole classics over time. If I had to pick one it would probably be "A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter M. Miller. It's got a sense of wonder, it's funny and thoughtful.
5 comments:
I agree with a classic (loosely defined) being a book that has been held in high esteem for a long time. A book that has endured and stayed appealing.
However, I do NOT think this directly translates to the book necessarily being something I think of as good. I've read both classics I love and ones I hate.
I used to try to argue the definition of classic to only books that I like. Then I realized how stupid I was being. I still think some of the "classics" are horrible, but now I just accept that a book being classic is defined by enduring MASS appeal, and the masses aren't necessarily very smart. Then I go read something else.
Like science fiction. Or Harry Potter.
Gah, I also meant to say that I'm gonna check out the book you mentioned. I've never heard of it and recently I've been having trouble finding things I want to read.
Whenever I think of the word "classics", I hear my pesky 9th grade english teacher in my head rambling about "redeeming value". Perhaps the analogy works better with music. The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and Nirvana had redeeming value. Hanson, Ricky Martin, and the Backstreet Boys sure didn't.
While the test of time is definately a great litmus test, it kinda takes quite some time to come up with a result. I think what can ultimately determine what will become a classic is some quality that makes it stand out against the hundreds or thousands of other books (or even music records) of the respective genre.
Borrowing an example from the article, there were many, many playwrights from the 16th century, but none of them wrote a revenge tragedy quite like Shakespeare's Hamlet.
I've never thought about what makes something a classic, and no one's ever mentioned it to me. I just take people's word for it, I guess. I suppose I'd say a classic would take time, superb writing, and a lot of people still loving it even though it's old. I've never really read anything that society would define as a classic, though, so I guess my opinion doesn't count that much.
Grace has never read a classic? Not even Huckleberry Finn? You should Huckleberry Finn this summer and then give us a book report.
Post a Comment