Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes
I don't think the problem here is with two classic months. I think it is with the narrow definition of classic or the complete lack of a definition of classic. Can someone define it? Can we agree on it? I don't believe it actually is age. There will always be that point in time that we define classic as having to be older than at which we find a book of great quality that is one year not old enough. Do we let it in? Slippery slope is an invalid argument because letting that one in shouldn't open the floodgate for two years younger, three years younger. But the original line is arbitrary. It's exclusionary. Classic, to me, would be a book that you would hold up within any category as a good example for the category. People tend to understand quality when they see it, even if they can't actually define it.
"Your classic author is the one you cannot feel indifferent to, who helps you define yourself in relation to him, even in dispute with him" (Italo Calvino).
A book that is one of "those we know we should have read" (Chris Cox).
It is a personal choice what classic is. I would call "If On a Winter's Night a Traveller" a classic, but it is only 32 years old now.
I feel it's a poor choice to have two months devoted to such a non-genre and difficult to pinpoint topic as classic. That's why I voted to change it and suggested a couple of options in one of the threads. But the voters want to keep the category. I believe we let people nominate what they feel is classic and let the voters weed out what is not really that way just as they have told us that there is no problem in having two classic months.
|
I have to agree. I think the definitions we've used for classic have been way too narrow. The last time it had to be public domain. That's why I suggested along with the classic nomination, there be a small definition of why said book is considered a classic. In the long run, i think that may make for a better definition of classic.