Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Don't you think, though, that most books that are considered "classics" are considered to be so because of the "writing skills" of the author? The reason that the books of authors like Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy, to name but three, are regarded as "classics" is because they were very, very good authors.
|
I think there are plenty of works, by good authors (of any age in time), that are called a "classic" just because they are by that author. Even though the book itself isn't worth the title "classic". Every writer has an off-day. Not all books are written equal.
But what I meant, mostly, is that people say: oh you should read Dickens (for example), while I might just not like his style of writing (maybe it's too bombastic for my taste, or not bombastic enough). But when you say you haven't read it, people look at you like you're from some barbaric tribe... In those cases, I'd say, yes, that masterpiece has been "overhyped". It doesn't say anything about how good a book is, how well written, but rather, how people think you should think about that book. (if you know what I mean...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Merely being "old" doesn't make a book a "classic" - you only have to look at PG to see that most old books were just as trashy as most modern books are; it's only a tiny minority which are generally considered to be "classics".
|
I agree completely on this.