Books you love that fit other's "hard no" criteria

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

TL;DR: Classic is mostly a “I know it when I see it” judgment. The Victorians, of course. Hemingway, ditto. Rowling, nope.

What defines a classic when we remove age as a factor?

I do consider Harry Potter to be a classic series. Some of the Victorians that are usually considered to be classics, I consider to be rubbish. Take Pride and Prejudice. If it was written today, it would never make classic status. It would just be considered your average romance novel.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Classics is a very generic term. I think you may want to narrow that done a bit.

How about “moldy old”? . My point was that it’s a turnoff for some, or else people twist the word into meaning absolutely anything, i.e., nothing at all.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What defines a classic when we remove age as a factor?

I do consider Harry Potter to be a classic series. Some of the Victorians that are usually considered to be classics, I consider to be rubbish. Take Pride and Prejudice. If it was written today, it would never make classic status. It would just be considered your average romance novel.

You can’t remove age as a factor; it’s implicit in the word. “Instant classic” is an oxymoron. Harry Potter’s not even 25 years old. Way too soon for classic status. The time-tested aspect is crucial. I’ll add that there are objective issues with the quality of the books that might keep them from going classic ever.

It’s important to differentiate between between “not to my taste” and “rubbish.” It’s good to be able to identify books that are quality of their kind, even if not to your particular taste. Credibility takes a huge hit when you can’t do that. I don’t like SF, for example, but I can say that Asimov is good, a classic even, but that Star Trek is rubbish. There’s a difference. I’d read Asimov if that’s all that was available, but I’d read a cereal box before I read Star Trek. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying rubbish, though; show me a person who never likes junk and I’ll show you a liar.

As for P&P, it’s not the plot, it’s the literary style that makes it classic. Modern day romance novelists are no Austens, nor Heyer who wrote the same kind of book, over and over. Emma and Persuasion are even better. Oh, and Austen’s not a Victorian novelist, to be pedantic.

I’m taking the mickey on you a little. But really, there’s a general sense of what classic means and it’s not necessary to overthink or overdefine it, and you can’t only extrapolate from your own preferences to the general.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

From what we've found out, these "great American authors" may not be great. In fact, some may be not nice people even if they are a product of their time.

Whether the author is a nice person or a genuine jerk has generally nothing to do with the quality of their work. The same goes for artists, composers, scientists, cooks, car mechanics and basically anyone who does anything at all. You might not want to read a novel written by a child abuser or have your car repaired by a wife-beater, but that doesn't necessarily mean the work itself isn't good. Great works have been produced by jerks and nice persons alike.

[cfrizz]

The "classics" that I had to read in high school was enough for me, haven't read any since. As for everything else I don't condemn anything to rubbish, since I'm sure someone will like it. I happen to love the Star Trek Original series books, I can appreciate that they might not be to your liking, but they certainly are not rubbish.

As for condemning artists be they musicians, writers etc. I don't factor their personal lives into their work. I couldn't care less about their personal lives because it's THEIR personal lives and none of my business, and has nothing to do with the excellence of their work.

[Luffy]

It's wrong to pretend that's it's near improbable to know when certain books are going to be labelled as classics in the future. Fans of Dickens and Doyle knew instantly and so do fans of Harry Potter.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Luffy

It's wrong to pretend that's it's near improbable to know when certain books are going to be labelled as classics in the future. Fans of Dickens and Doyle knew instantly

I doubt it. I suspect Dickens’ and Doyle’s fans just looked forward to the next installment or story without thinking of posterity, and that classics to their mind were more along the lines of the literature of classical antiquity, the Elizabethans, the Restoration (except that much of it would have been too salacious for Victorian tastes) and up to the 18th century essayists. In any case, I’m choosing to scratch my head over, “It’s wrong to pretend,” rather than be insulted. Why is it wrong to hold an opinion, and whyever would you say that I don’t really hold my stated opinion?

If you want anecdotal evidence of how it’s impossible to know what will last, take a look at the early Nobelists in literature. Some have lasted, but many have been deservedly forgotten. Even recent choices have met with a lot of contention.

and so do fans of Harry Potter.

Well, the proof of that will be in time. See Nobelists, above.

[Luffy]

I know you've expressed your beliefs on this matter multiple times, and that you've not wavered on your stance, ever. Being aware of that, I won't be trying to change anyone's mind. I just hope that people who share my opinion will understand it.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Luffy

It's wrong to pretend that's it's near improbable to know when certain books are going to be labelled as classics in the future. Fans of Dickens and Doyle knew instantly and so do fans of Harry Potter.

Besides Harry Potter, could you name some more recent books that will be classics?

[Luffy]

I choose not to. Goodbye.

[Gandulf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Moreover, I'm not interested in the author's gender, skin color or sexual orientation. They play exactly zero part in how I select my reading material.

.

With you on that 1.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by issybird

It’s important to differentiate between between “not to my taste” and “rubbish.” It’s good to be able to identify books that are quality of their kind, even if not to your particular taste. Credibility takes a huge hit when you can’t do that. I don’t like SF, for example, but I can say that Asimov is good, a classic even, but that Star Trek is rubbish. There’s a difference. I’d read Asimov if that’s all that was available, but I’d read a cereal box before I read Star Trek. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying rubbish, though; show me a person who never likes junk and I’ll show you a liar.

Well, my take is that there's precisely 2 Star Trek (any series) novels that aren't rubbish:

The Final Reflection and How Much For Just the Planet?. Both are by the late John M Ford and completely subvert the ST tropes while keeping within the then novelisation guidelines. TFR is (was?) available as a double with Michael J Friedman's Kahless, and it was like pairing an old master with a paint-by-numbers picture.

[JSWolf]

If we had some of the old classics written today instead of back then, would they become classics? Are they classics because of when they were written or are they classics because of the work itself regardless of anything else? If it's regardless of anything else, then they would become classics again. But what I'd like to know is how would they be received now. How would they be reviewed? And I do think some of the more modern classics would probably not be classics if they were written way back when. I think classics are a product of their time and take them out of their time and they may not work like they do in their time.

What I find with a lot of the old classics is not the story, but the way they are written. Sometimes they don't sit right. This doe snot make them rubbish. IT just makes reading them not to my liking.

[John F]

Originally Posted by John F

Besides Harry Potter, could you name some more recent books that will be classics?

Originally Posted by Luffy

I choose not to. Goodbye.

Hello.

Harry Potter does seem like it will be a classic. I wonder if fans of ERB or C.S. Lewis thought they were classics at the time. I'm a fan of a bunch of authors that I really enjoy, and the only authors I can think of that may fall into the future "classic" genre would be Stephen King, John Irving, Ursula K LeGuin*, and Ian McEwan*. Jim Butcher, Jodi Picoult, Michael Connelly, Suzanne Collins, John Grisham, Ben Arronovitch, Nick Hornby, Lee Child, Fredrik Bachman, ... I thoroughly enjoy, but I wouldn't put them in the "future classic " or "instant classic" label (unless I was the author trying to hawking my book ).

As far as particular books, I'm not sure. And if you limit it to "classic literature", than it is down to 1 author with a couple of books. It might be fun to go back through the blurbs of the books I've read to see which say "classic" (but I'm not going to do it.)

But than it comes back to the definition of classic.

I have my doubts as to fans determining classics; I'll leave it up to the literary scholars.

*These two because because others rate them highly.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by John F

Hello.

But than it comes back to the definition of classic.

I have my doubts as to fans determining classics; I'll leave it up to the literary scholars. .

Literary scholars are last people who should br determining what is a classic.
I have not read any Jane Ausren (too many other books to read first) but I believe her books have not been out of print since they were first published, which must say something about the quality of her writing. I think a real classic has this kind of staying power. Just think about the Nobel prize for literature. How many of these titles are in print, regularly read today or even remembered?

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Apache

I don't mind romance in a story that is part of the plot and is well done. I am not interested in reading Romance as a genre. I also do not like a book that has graphical sex situations.
Apache

Same here!