|
Thanks @SteveEisenberg, for the well-thought out description. I think you're right about some books being perpetually published without having literary merit, and thus, that condition isn't enough to define a classic book.
Personally, I do think that classics can be low-brow, as well as high-brow. Your example, "Gone with the Wind", is a good one. As long as it exhibits a lasting perception of excellence within a class, anything can be a classic. So, I align myself with the modern usage, but I wonder how many today can say that they know the elitist "Classics" you referred to? One hundred plus years ago, they were studied in the original languages (French, Italian, Latin, Greek,...), and I doubt that even the privileged students hold that kind of thing as necessary today. It's no wonder that many scholars have given up on the old definition, as you say.
|