Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
Re-reading my post, I can see that my first sentence, in isolation, is badly worded. I did not mean that other people's book selections were amusing because I thought that the particular book they'd chosen was a bad book. The three books I mention are all good books, and it's quite reasonable for people to select them as the best book they've read.
It was their selection as "classics" that amused me. Perhaps this is a US/UK difference in meaning. When referring to literature, I consider classic to have the meaning "of lasting significance or worth; enduring".
While it's possible that the best book of all time was written last year, history shows us that it's almost impossible to judge the "lasting significance or worth" of books near the publication date. What is a wildly popular book now can fade into obscurity as quickly as it rose. Will Dan Bown's "The DaVinci Code" remain popular? Will Steig Larsson's "The Girl Who..." books remain popular? No one knows.
Which is why I found the three selections rather surprising for "classic" books.
But I guess I'm showing my age a bit. Having checked the publication dates (1954, 1961 and 1965), I can see how people born after (say) 1980 might well consider them classics.
|
The Tolkien example already mentioned inthis thread is a good example of a classic. It's still in print and selling well. It inspired countless authors and had a heavy influence in a genre we call 'fantasy'. Multi-million dollar movies were made based on his works. It's still adored by grandpas, fathers, sons and greatsons...
If this is an amusing classic, I wonder what's a real classic. Remember that probably 20 or more years passed since you've learned what a classic is.
