Sure, let's ask the original poster what he defines as "classic" just for the sake of convenience in this thread (not absolute, just for the thread):
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDBoblo
I think that it's impossible to absolutely define classics, but what I meant for my post was works that are deemed by a society, whether by its masses or by its literati, to have significant literary value, either through quality or influence. I chose to restrict books after 1960 not because the year has any innate significance, but rather to encourage discussion on relatively well-established works of our collective civilizations instead of modern fiction (naturally some of which will be seen as classic in the future).
Genre is, as a principle, irrelevant. However, I admit that some fields have developed significantly since 1960 and some definitive works have been made since then, so there may be a little unfairness in the exclusion.
|
OK, so that's what he said. I can't say I
completely agree with his definition, but it works for this thread I guess.