Classic Novels

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Great book, lasting value, critical and/or commercial sucess ...

Or Jon's extraordinary reading tastes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Great book, lasting value, critical and/or commercial sucess ...

Commercial success...

Does that mean that The Da Vinci Code and 50 Shades of Grey are classics? They aren't classics. As for lasting value, a lot of the old classics don't have lasting value.

[Belfaborac]

Which ones are those?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Does that mean that The Da Vinci Code and 50 Shades of Grey are classics? They aren't classics. As for lasting value, a lot of the old classics don't have lasting value.

At it's broadest definition (what I call a classic), then yes. The Da Vinci Code and 50 Shades of Grey could be in somebody's list of classics. At it's narrowest definition, then no they aren't. The haven't survived the test of time.

I've found a couple of online definitions that agree with how *I* define a classic.

A classic book is a book that is very well known and passed down through generations. An example of this is Robert Louis Stevenson' s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, published in 1886. Most people know about this book, even if they have not read it. Eveyone is familiar with the phrase "Jekyll and Hyde personality." There are also movies based on this book, and the character Mr. Hyde appears in other movies.A classic book will be read and appreciated for years to come. The book is also used in modern culture. An example of this is Charles Dickens' book, A Christmas Carol. There are multiple plays and movies about this book. Many people know about Scrooge and his catch phrase, "Bah Humbug." A classic book is of very good quality and written very well. The book is symbolic and represents something in our culture.

http://classicbooks.sblc.wikispaces....a+Classic+Book

1) A novel, non-fiction or other literary work (ex: collection of poems or a play) that has been able to connect to its audience over many decades or centuries - Timelessness. No matter when the work was written, the reader is able to feel and understand it. For example, readers in the 21st century can still relate to Huckleberry Finn because of its theme of innocence. Anyone at any period of time understands innocence. When an author has the ability to connect with readers many years after their work is published is an amazing ability. In that sense, a book that was written only a few years ago wouldn't be considered a "classic" because it hasn't proven its longevity and stood its course over time. Also, typically "classics" are novels and collections of poems rather than information that is included in textbooks or covered in the educational studies of math, the sciences, and the arts (excluding the literary arts).

http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/...ot/td-p/252725

So, define "Classics" any way you want. Just don't *expect* most people to agree with you.

[rkomar]

How about defining "Classic" as being perpetually reprinted? Project Gutenberg is going to make that harder to determine in the future, though.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Commercial success...

Does that mean that The Da Vinci Code and 50 Shades of Grey are classics? They aren't classics. As for lasting value, a lot of the old classics don't have lasting value.

I said: "Great book, lasting value, critical and/or commercial sucess ..."

You pulled out one of the three factors I mentioned. And if 50 years from now, those two books are still being read and have not been consigned to the trash heap, then maybe they will be considered classics.

The old classics don't have lasting value? Huh? They got to be classics precisely because they DO have lasting value.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Give me a definition of what makes Anna Karenina a classic. Does this definition fit with say Fahrenheit 451 or Lord of the Rings?

Once again, you assume that these are classics because you think they are. If you think they are classics, then you must (by definition, so to speak) be applying some definition of classic.
So, what is that definition you are applying?

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

As for lasting value, a lot of the old classics don't have lasting value.

And yet here we are discussing them

[jgaiser]

Once again. Jon doesn't like them, so they are by definition *not classics*. Who can argue with that!

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Once again. Jon doesn't like them, so they are by definition *not classics*. Who can argue with that!

Everybody but John?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I said: "Great book, lasting value, critical and/or commercial sucess ..."

You pulled out one of the three factors I mentioned. And if 50 years from now, those two books are still being read and have not been consigned to the trash heap, then maybe they will be considered classics.

The old classics don't have lasting value? Huh? They got to be classics precisely because they DO have lasting value.

Not all classic books have to be old. What about modern classics?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Not all classic books have to be old. What about modern classics?

Sure.. Just so you understand something published in the past couple of years doesn't meet the longevity requirement (just off the top of my head):

To Kill a Mockingbird
The Catcher in the Rye
The Great Gatsby
Lord of the Flies
1984
Animal Farm
Fahrenheit 451
Catch-22
Brave New World
Slaughterhouse-Five
A Clockwork Orange
Old Man and the Sea
Grapes of Wrath

I'm sure others can add to the list

[JSWolf]

So how long is this longevity requirement?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So how long is this longevity requirement?

Come on Jon. More than 10 or 15 years. Long enough to be read by more than one generation. Still being published after *many* years.

I'm really sorry you don't like how Classic Literature is defined. My suggestion is that you read whatever you like and don't worry about definitions.

Edit: So... Is my list not examples of modern classics? Give me a list of what you think are modern classics.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Come on Jon. More than 10 or 15 years. Long enough to be read by more than one generation. Still being published after *many* years.

I'm really sorry you don't like the how Classic Literature is defined. My suggestion is that you read whatever you like and don't worry about definitions.

I'm just trying to prove that classic is not a fixed definition and that a lot of it is based on opinion. This is why classic is not a good classification. Too many variations.