[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

and the work merits lasting recognition

The problem is that this is too vague. Take what the literary book club is about to maybe read. A Passage to India. It does not merit lasting recognition. So would it still be a classic in that case?

“A classic usually expresses some artistic quality--an expression of life, truth, and beauty. A classic stands the test of time. The work is usually considered to be a representation of the period in which it was written; and the work merits lasting recognition. In other words, if the book was published in the recent past, the work is not a classic. A classic has a certain universal appeal. Great works of literature touch us to our very core beings--partly because they integrate themes that are understood by readers from a wide range of backgrounds and levels of experience. Themes of love, hate, death, life, and faith touch upon some of our most basic emotional responses. A classic makes connections. You can study a classic and discover influences from other writers and other great works of literature.”

Given this definition, I think a lot of people would feel that Twilight is a classic other then the age of the book.

But what about a book that shows us something that is not life, truth, & beauty? Can't it show something ugly and still be classic?

What about a book or series of books that when you finish reading you say to yourself, "I wish there was more". Would that count towards maybe being classic? What touches some do not touch others. And just because a book touches us, does not make it a classic. I've read some Star Trek books that have touched a lot of people. They may be considered classic within the Star Trek universe, but not outside. There is no one definition of classic that can embrace what a classic is.

The definitions you posted, why good are not the be all and end all of what a classic can be. The problem is that there are a lot of books that are classic are horribly awful and some of them are foisted on kids in school and that causes the kids to take a dislike to reading. All in the name of classics.


The problem is that classic is way too vague. Yes, you can know it when you see it, but just because you see it or I see it, doesn't mean others see it. In fact,

So, what is modern classic, well sounds like an oxymoron to me:

"A modern classic, then, would have to be a book written after WWI, and probably after WWII. Why? Because those cataclysmic events shifted the way the world sees itself in irreversible ways.

"Beyond content, modern classics also demonstrate a shift in style from earlier eras. This shift began in the early part of the century, with luminaries such as James Joyce expanding the reach of the novel as a form. In the post-war era, the hardened realism of the Hemingway school became less of a novelty and more a requirement. Cultural shifts have meant that obscenities once viewed as outrageous are commonplace. Sexual “liberation” may be more of a fantasy than a reality in the real world, but in literature the characters certainly sleep around a lot more casually than they used to. In tandem with television and movies, literature has also shown its willingness to spill blood on the pages, as violent horrors that once would not even have been alluded to now become the basis of best-selling novels."

Why does a book written after WWII have to have more sex and violence? The truth is, they don't. A classic can be something that has no sex and no violence and written after WWII.

So, seeing as there is something to the idea of modern classic and some folks here see two classic months as a "duplication" here is my proposal.

Classic - pre World War 1 (pre-1939)

this would be the month for those great books written long ago that you can still buy at borders. Most will be in the public domain so people can download them for free.

Modern Classic - post World War I

this would be your On The Road, Catch-22, A Canticle for Liebowitz, Harry Potter, Hitchhickers Guide, etc. This can also include those Pulitzer prize winners as well.

yes, I know there are classics in every genre but I still think there is merit in having months set aside for classics... especially since I don't have time to participate in the "literary" book club.

thoughts?

BOb

What about books written during WWI or WWII? Where do they fit in?

Would you not have to say that a book written 14 years ago that's still popular and may have a resurgence to be possibly a classic? 14 years is quite a good amount of time (IMHO) for a book to retain popularity.

What might be a good idea (IMHO) would be for someone to explain why he/she thinks the nomination is a classic and if it fits, it gets nominated and if not, it doesn't. Some books that are considered to be classic, I just don't see it. For example, Rendezvous With Rama. It's supposed to be a classic, but I just don't see it. And since some won't see all nominations as classic, why not have the nominator explain why it's a classic so maybe we can get everyone on board.

The last time we had classics, the limitations were such that most of the nominated books were awful. We can't have such limitations for fear of a repeat. We need to keep it open.