Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
This is why classic is not a good classification. Too many variations.
|
Of course it's a good/useful general classification. People would stop using it if it weren't. The "Classic Little Black Dress": like it, love it, hate it, can't pull off the look yourself; these things have no bearing on the fact that deep down, despite the myriad of subtle possible variations, everyone knows what it means. I'm not certain why you have the misconception that when it comes to literature, that "classic" should somehow imply that most people will enjoy it.
Classic isn't a qualitative term, IMO.
The term works perfectly well for discussions between people of varying backgrounds/tastes/inclinations. It may not get you to the exact same street address, but it will get all participants in the same "zipcode" rather quickly and efficiently—where they can then present the individual cases for or against their personal pet fringe (in|ex)clusions.
As for the "modern" qualifier... well, you're just being pedantic. The "Modern Art" period started in the late-mid 1800s and ended in the 1970s. There's no hard and fast date parameters.
Modern is relative. So is
Classic. So is
Good. But of those three; only the first two are even
moderately useful when discussing literature in groups containing more than a single participant.