View Single Post
Old 05-30-2011, 02:53 PM   #190
issybird
o saeclum infacetum
issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.issybird ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
issybird's Avatar
 
Posts: 21,383
Karma: 235205657
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New England
Device: Mini, H2O, Glo HD, Aura One, PW4, PW5
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
So then the December classic could be from authors who are still alive and writing?
Sure! If the author wrote a book of classic quality published before 1960. After all, Irving Berlin lived to see Alexander's Ragtime Band enter the public domain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
The list is not completely broken. But when we struggle one month with Classic, why then have to struggle yet again. It's the worst category and it's not properly defined. A classic is not just a book written by a dead author. It's not just a book that is in the public domain. It is not a book written at least 50 years ago. The Harry Potter example I posted above is true. Harry Potter is a classic series. The only criteria it don't meet (given your definition) is it's not 50 years old. Many classics are dry and dull.
I disagree with so much of this. I don't struggle with Classic as a concept or as a category, nor with reading books from it. Nor is it the worst category, not to me anyway; that would be reserved for science fiction. De gustibus and all that. Harry Potter's not a classic, at least not yet. (And I don't think Harry Potter is well written, either.) I'm willing to admit that a lot of classics are dry and dull, but so are a lot of books taken as a whole. Don't vote for a dry and dull one. Problem solved. Now science fiction, there's dullness for you. [/irony font]

As for the definition of classic, I think Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography holds: I know it when I see it. I think most people do. There might be some quibbling at the margins, but the canon is standard enough for nominating/voting purposes.
issybird is online now   Reply With Quote