# What makes a classic a classic?



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

Go into the bookstore. You see on the labels "classic." (and I don't mean spiritual classics) They are probably old and have a certain dignity to them. But at one point they were not old. They were contemporary literature. Dare we say, "pop culture?" 

What makes a classic a classic? i will assume for the moment that there are certain objective, knowable standards of beauty and order. That probably plays a role. I will make a list of classics, by no means exhaustive:

*Anything by Jane Austen
*Dostoevsky
*Dante
*Milton
*Miguel de Cervantes

What is it about these and other books that make them *classics*?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Oct 23, 2007)

My opinion, if it stands the test of time then I christen it a classic.

In reality however classics seem to stem from what influence the masses or a political, musical, artistic, theological thought and movement embrace and how well they age accordingly in concern of their relevance and provocation.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 23, 2007)

I think there are at least two factors:

(1) They remain popular long after first being published (the subjective attitude of the audience test--of course, the audience may be small, like people who appreciate Puritan writings, but among that audience they remain popular);

(2) Authors try to replicate their style, substance, depth, etc., and realize that they can't (the standing out from the crowd test).


----------



## etexas (Oct 23, 2007)

I think they are works that could "speak" to people when they were penned and maintain this ability over the years... I know that sounds vague and perhaps is....but if I could pin down EXACTLY the science of all components of a classic...I would write one!


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> (2) Authors try to replicate their style, substance, depth, etc., and realize that they can't (the standing out from the crowd test).



LOL!! That is so true. Go to the fantasy section of the bookstore and see how many JRR Tolkien wannbees there are.


----------



## Davidius (Oct 23, 2007)

I believe the term "classical" is used to refer to art that adheres to certain sophisticated standards of order. Classics are not "new and innovative" but maintain the same simple ordered beauty that has been revered since the original "Classical" period (the 5th century in Athens). 

I don't really know what I just said.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I believe the term "classical" is used to refer to art that adheres to certain sophisticated standards of order. Classics are not "new and innovative" but maintain the same simple ordered beauty that has been revered since the original "Classical" period (the 5th century in Athens).
> 
> I don't really know what I just said.



 In music, there is a different between "classic" and "classical", but many don't make the distinction. Classical means generally serious music of any period. Classic refers to a particular period, usually post Baroque and pre-romantic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I believe the term "classical" is used to refer to art that adheres to certain sophisticated standards of order. Classics are not "new and innovative" but maintain the same simple ordered beauty that has been revered since the original "Classical" period (the 5th century in Athens).



That's not a bad explanation. Such satisfies my intellectual desires for the moment.



> I don't really know what I just said.



You were caught up in the spirit. We interpreted. You just proved the continuation of charismatic gifts.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 24, 2007)

a laughing smiley. 

Jacob, have you read Lewis' _Experiment in Criticism_? I think it's a good place to begin.


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 24, 2007)

classics all have complexity. The Miserables by Victor Hugo is a great example. It contains multiple plots, in-depth explanation of characters, and actually communicates philosophy, so you leave reading the book both entertained and enlightened. 

Do you think any of the books that were published these last two decades will be considered classics one day? May I suggest Harry Potter??


----------



## Davidius (Oct 24, 2007)

christianyouth said:


> Do you think any of the books that were published these last two decades will be considered classics one day? May I suggest Harry Potter??



Surely that will happen. And when it does, will it be legitimate to objectively denounce such classifications? If so, how?


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 24, 2007)

I think HP does have a classic plot, and that this is part of its wild popularity. But generally classics have the complexity -- beauty, strength, sheer battering force even, linguistic precision, something, as regards style. The way the thing is said is worthy of the thing said: the sense of things are communicated skilfully as well as their essence (this is my problem with Henry James: what he's saying never seems worth the trouble he takes over it). The style is something that wakes the imagination as well as the subject matter; and you fall in love as much, and remember as much, the phrasing of the descriptions for instance, in Dickens as with anything described. Is it objective enough to be able to point out technicalities of how stylistically the 'classics' of this generation are not usually up to par with the past? (a literary critic could do this.)


----------



## weinhold (Oct 24, 2007)

One of my professors, Louise Cowan, has edited a book on this subject with Os Guinness: Invitation to the Classics. Her introduction is particularly relevant to this thread. Here is her list of classic characteristics: 



> 1. The classics not only exhibit distinguished style, fine artistry, and keen intellect buy create whole universes of imagination and thought.
> 
> 2. They portray life as complex and many-sided, depicting both negative and positive aspects of human character in the process of discovering and testing enduring virtues.
> 
> ...



(As a corollary, it should also be noted that "classics" can refer specifically to the study of ancient languages and cultures and not the type of literature described above, i.e. Greek and Latin)


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Oct 24, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think any of the books that were published these last two decades will be considered classics one day? May I suggest Harry Potter??
> ...


Cult classics spring up annually in our society, that will be the key distinction, Potter will be a cult classic and join the ranks of 'The Toxic Avenger' and 'Rocky Horror picture Show' as what our modern age thought fit to add to the treasure trove of human works and art, but the true treasure trove will cast aside such notions and turn mainly to antiquity and principles that have flourished since its time into the modern age.

Postmodernism and products of it cannot rightfully expect to grow in appreciation as time goes by, they are by their very nature and definition opposed to the values that have always judged beauty, justice, intellect, art and literature.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 24, 2007)

(at least) two things off of the top of my head re what makes a classic
.
1) univerality. Does the work "travel well"? If only 15 to 24 year old boys who are good at math & bad at girls like it... then it is not a classic. If however, readers from an other culture/race/religion/time/language read and value your work you may be an author of a classic. Think of P.G. Woodehouse and his vast following among Indians & Pakistanis, or Eco and his hugh readership in translation.

2) timelessness. Milton, Shakespere, the translators of the AV, etc. BTW Austen does not get a bye in this area. in my opinion her numbers get spammed by the dispraportionate number of white middle-class females who are English Litt majors.

3) "greatness" of the theme. This one is bit harder to define. An illustration may help. in my opinion "Catcher in the Rye" is NOT a classic because the theme is...mundane. A well written, well crafted book of enduring value perhaps, but no classic. "The Short Happy life of Francis Macomber" ( is that the right name?) By Hemmingway, on the other hand deals with a very *big* theme and thus in my view may be (is) a classic. OK perhaps "For Whom The Bell tolls" would have been a better example.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 24, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think any of the books that were published these last two decades will be considered classics one day? May I suggest Harry Potter??
> ...



in my opinion HP books (which I love) are not well enough written & have too many plot problems to be Classics. They do however have a universal theme...


----------



## Kevin (Oct 24, 2007)

weinhold said:


> One of my professors, Louise Cowan, has edited a book on this subject with Os Guinness: Invitation to the Classics. Her introduction is particularly relevant to this thread. Here is her list of classic characteristics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Nice list.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 24, 2007)

weinhold said:


> One of my professors, Louise Cowan, has edited a book on this subject with Os Guinness: Invitation to the Classics. Her introduction is particularly relevant to this thread. Here is her list of classic characteristics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Louise Cowan was your prof? That's really cool. I have read the aforementioned book and it was quite delightful. I really enjoyed it, but it was a LONG time ago. Currently, I am reading Lewis' Experiment in Criticism.


----------



## weinhold (Oct 25, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Louise Cowan was your prof? That's really cool. I have read the aforementioned book and it was quite delightful. I really enjoyed it, but it was a LONG time ago. Currently, I am reading Lewis' Experiment in Criticism.



Yes, she is a most excellent professor. She is still teaching at the University of Dallas, where I am enrolled. I'm currently taking a class with her on lyric poetry.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 25, 2007)

Some books considerd classics are pretty pathetic...

If people keep reading a book, even if it stinks, then it is a classic. 


But if it stinks too bad, people will stop reading it....

Or, the older generationwill INSIST that the younger generation has no taste because they liked somebook whose language is archane, etc, or that does not touh on this generation's problems. Then a classic is mainted as a classic through literary snobbery.

The teacher that made us read Melville's Billy Budd ought to be flogged.



I am more pragmatic. SOme common threads unite the classics, but the most common threadis that people liked them at some point and someone kept them in print.


----------



## weinhold (Oct 25, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> The teacher that made us read Melville's Billy Budd ought to be flogged.



At least your teacher instructed you in the capacity of hyperbole, as you demonstrate above. Perhaps you should have read _Moby-Dick_, Melville's classic novel, though I think _Billy Budd_ is excellent as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 25, 2007)

NEVER ever in a MILLION years would I ever hyperbolize!

SHe also taught me how to do grammar and spell too....as you can see from the above! 



Time to hit the books and learn to love Melville....."...call me Ishmael..."


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 25, 2007)

Yeah, I thought Billy Budd was pretty good too. It was the late 20th century interpreters of it I couldn't stand.


----------



## weinhold (Oct 25, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> NEVER ever in a MILLION years would I ever hyperbolize!
> 
> SHe also taught me how to do grammar and spell too....as you can see from the above!
> 
> ...


----------

