Some folks are getting pretty salty today about conversations about “classic books”. Tell us, folks -salty or otherwise- what is your definition of a “classic”?
Personally, my non-scholarly opinion is that books are defined as classics if the author had an influence on culture (Dickens or Hugo calling out social injustices) or on the genre (Stoker or Shelley or Hemingway, etc.)
If you make a distinction between “classic” and “modern classic” please explain why.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts and civil discussion!
Bonus discussion topic: are “classics” actually timeless? Or do some age poorly, even when viewed within their temporal context?
by jedikelb
23 Comments
I don’t know how to thank the mod who helped me with info on editing my auto deleted post, so thanks anonymous moderator!
Classics are just non-contemporary books (by some indeterminate amount of time) that are still relevant and discussed for whatever reason.
It’s broad and vague, but then again, look at how many classics there are.
And then look closer at the tiers within tiers of those classics.
It’s like a pyramid divided into genres and themes wherein things like The Martian Chronicles and Uncle Tom’s Cabin live. (I chose these two examples because they are not popular leisure reading anymore but were so impactful in their historical contexts that they will forever live on through their influence and seminal importance.)
The capstone of the pyramid are the most elite of the elite that need no caveats to justify their worth.
And perhaps that capstone is what some would only truly consider as true classics, but such an exclusive delineation would leave out so many candidates I feel like any defense of it would fall apart at some point.
There’s a good reason to give a damn about the book at a point in time when most books of its type and publication date have been long forgotten. Modern classic might mean the same thing or it may be a prediction that the book will outlast the usual attention cycle.
Longevity is the first thing that came to my mind. Which is probably a more or less direct result of things like quality or cultural influence. Because the bad or mediocre books or the books that are just not relevant anymore will eventually fade away.
“Modern classics” in my mind are just classics that are not quite as old. Think George Orwell vs. Jules Vernes. Both influential in the SciFi genre, both still popular with today’s readers but one is from the 19th century while the other is from the 20th (roughly, I didn’t check publication dates).
But I feel the term is also thrown around as a marketing tool. Like, I have seen it used for Twilight. Eh. No.
Books are defined as classics because white men say they are.
The term “classic” can mean different things in different contexts. A classic book has always stood the test of time, but it’s not always a book that is commonly assigned schools or studied in Ph.D. dissertations.
It’s not always a *literary* classic. It’s not always historically important like the *Bible* or *Uncle Tom’s Cabin.*
It may be a classic adventure story, or fantasy, or science fiction story, or romance, or mystery, or other genre classic. It may be a classic in one country but not another.
There can also be debates about what is and isn’t a classic. Many books have fallen into obscurity, or never were famous during their authors’ lifetimes, but were rediscovered at later dates.
Many people have challenged the traditional Western classics because they are skewed towards white European male authors. Feminists or people of color or people from other continents may offer alternative classics.
There’s a lot of subjectivity involved in labeling classics. There’s no definitive list of classics. If you call a book a classic, it’s important to give some context to that statement so people understand what you mean. Otherwise all we really know is that it’s a pretty old book.
Classics-great books written pre 1970.
Modern Classics-great books written post 1970.
Classic: Having a significant cultural impact and importance, usually with a societal message or warning. Social commentary is pretty much always present in one form or another. Most often they are older, but still have relevance in their core messages and/or warnings. The words used may be outdated but that’s because language changes and evolves, and words printed on a page do not. The core meanings, not necessarily how they are presented, are what matter. Those cores are eternal and they have longevity because such cores remain relevant to humanity.
Modern Classic: I guess I’d say also having significant cultural impact and importance, but less so I find they have true messages or warnings. Like Harry Potter- global phenomenon, very arguably a modern classic. While it has timeless themes of friendship, good v. evil, etc., there isn’t a clear message or warning in the same way there is in say 1984 or Fahrenheit 451.
“Stood the test of time” is the obvious metric, and thus I would say that the difference between a “classic” and a “modern classic” is simply that a “modern classic” has yet to fully undergo a test. I think there are other facets to it – some classics were majorly important in history, others defined a literary genre, others are the only testament to a cultural identity – but I think it all boils down to whether it’s still talked about in 100 years, or 200 years, or 500 years, or 1000 years, or 2000 years, or so on. A “modern classic” is more or less just a guess someone makes, I reckon.
Can a genre book be a classic? I had so many teachers in school and college turn up their nose at me saying genre books aren’t real literature. I’ve seen similar sentiments in this sub. Is Frankenstein and Lord of The Rings worthy of classic status? How about more recent but widely acclaimed books like Enders Game, Hyperion, and Left Hand of Darkness? My opinion is that there is great literature in every genre and that people should be so quick to put down something just because it’s sci fi, fantasy, horror, or other non straight forward fiction.
It becomes a classic when it can truly stand the test of time.
For me, a classic is any a book that portays universal truths about the human experience which transcend particular cultural/temporal norms. Bonus points for beautiful/witty quotable passages.
It is essentially a socially constructed consensus. There is nothing intrinsic or fundamental or objective that makes a book a classic. The classics are the classics because enough people agree they are the classics. It’s tautological in that way.
Better discussion would be why do spend so much time worrying about what a “classic” is and what books should be considered “classics.”
I like your definition a lot! I would only distinguish between ‘classics’ and ‘modern classics’ in that I would define many ‘modern classics’ as books that have the POTENTIAL to exert influences on society or genre but aren’t old enough yet to gauge their impact.
I also think some classics are looked at through rose-tinted glasses. Everyone on this sub gets really mad when I say this, but 1984 is in dire need of an editor. The manifesto section in the middle is clunky as all hell. Before you get out the pitchforks, I’m not saying 1984 is a bad book, but that the quality of the writing and especially the pacing could be much better.
Books can also age poorly for political reasons–racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are the usual offenders. I don’t think this means a book deserves to be universally panned because of this, as often they’re a product of the time, but I do think it’s still a valid criticism, and anyone who doesn’t want to read X writer because Y theme makes them uncomfortable is well within their rights to say so.
Well staying in print is important. Although I think they’ve also got to be well known. In the case of Angela Brazil her books were highly influential on the schoolgirl/boarding school genres and are still in print but if I were to go out into the street and ask 10 people if they’ve heard of her I guarantee every single one will say no.
You’ve got it. It’s an overlapping but not completely equivalent category to ‘literature’, which means it also has literary value. Literature is timeless, a classic that is mainly so purely for the cultural influence is more simply interesting…provided you’re actually interested in literature (and surrounding history, philosophy etc.) in the first place. Doesn’t mean you’re not justified when it bounces off the wall.
Modern classics I think are more chosen with an expectation the literary value will make it last. Children’s classics like Harry Potter are a bit different again (though the writing does have more to it than is sometimes appreciated). It’s hard for a literary fiction novel for adults to have quite the same cultural reach even across Europe as they once might have, there’s just more easy access to all sorts of fiction, so it’s not like it can feel say, in the eighteenth century where apparently everyone has nothing better to do than read Robinson Crusoe. So those anticipated to have staying power are more likely to be outstanding works of literature.
Even when viewed within their temporal context is an interesting one to me. Obviously politics can make a difference. *Paul et Virginie* lasted in England through the 19th century, but from a modern perspective it’s a mix of boring (and I *like* fluffy Sentimentality) and utterly alien morality, next to still exciting political works of the period. The writer seemed to be expecting the English interest to help with the subscription (crowdfunding) for an illustrated edition (but was disappointed aristos don’t think they need to pay for things). He hadn’t fallen out of favour yet but it also doesn’t sit neatly alongside other works, esp. abolitionist. But then this period as a time of great change is just like that. With different history I imagine we might have more works from it better known as classics.
If its timeless. True classics that I read often don’t feel like a foreign world in the past and just draws you in there.
Basically if the book is older than me I’m calling it a classic. And as we all know classic books are usually old books, so if a book has to be older than me to be classic by my standard then I myself will never become classic and therefore old. That’s how you beat the getting old system lol
Classic: a purely academic canonization of arbitrary works for the express purpose of deifying the past and denigrating anything modern
Example: Classic rock is the best genre of music. Anything made after 1986 is shallow trash and is probably turning the youth into terrorists. Now get off my lawn
I’d say something that is a direct representation of past culture, or more-so, the most recent past culture.
Like classic music, it always changes, because as time moves forward, so does the generation that is deemed as classic. Classis rock used to be Elvis, now its Linkin Park.
So it must be for books.
To kill a mockingbird no long represents our ‘parent generation’, and its representation in schools as a classic read is on a steep decline. Therefor its no longer a classic in the genre defined as classic.
So what do we name this new category of ‘Once a classic, no longer.’?
‘Oldie”
It’s really really good or great and also a lot of ppl seem to think so.
Old but still around and its impact is still broadly perceived in culture.
Modern classic… I’d say it is presumptuous. But as in a not that old book that is affecting the landscape a lot.
How long it was out for one. Like it needs to be pretty old. How popular it was. Like I would say something like the Hobbit is a classic but I wouldn’t say the game of thrones is… yet. Give it time. Like the great Gatsby has been known as a classic for ages but only like last year got put in public domain which is great because now you can read it for free on project Gutenberg. But not everything on that site is a classic. Alot are. But not all. Because it needs to almost fit like the homer and Shakespeare vibe you know. Amazing writing and amazing story that is good both listened to and read.