Amassment Message Board

I'm of similar opinion, but lot of times it happened to me, that it was defined differently, like for example, two authors from the same time, one would be a classic, the other not, because it was not popular or something, and I would be confused, how can this happen.

I think some see classics as "best sellers" of some older time. Which is weird.

Saya wrote:I'm of similar opinion, but lot of times it happened to me, that it was defined differently, like for example, two authors from the same time, one would be a classic, the other not, because it was not popular or something, and I would be confused, how can this happen.

I think some see classics as "best sellers" of some older time. Which is weird.

It has nothing to do with popularity and, as I specified above, it relates to what is considered "high art". What is memorable, what manages to transcend the market of the time. This can cause art for the lower classes to move into the higher art bracket if the circumstances are right (the works of Shakespeare, for example, have moved to the higher tier over time).

A significant number of texts considered crucial to the Western canon did not sell well in their author's lifetime and even now would likely be considered "arty" or "niche" by the average consumer. It's all about the quality of the work and how it has shaped the cultural landscape, not necessarily how many lay people have purchased it.

That being said, I have to reiterate that there is no single list telling us all what is and is not considered a "classic". The Western canon is your best guide for those generally thought of as classic, but even that is constantly being revised, reshaped and contributed to. It also only reflects Western culture and sensibilities -- it's myopic at best. It's all about the dead white dudes and that is useless if you want to read classic works that don't focus on dead white dude stuff. Basically, there is a vague idea in the academic world about how to define classic or "high" works of art and literature. There is no perfect formula, however, and no set list. It's a very fluid concept, but at the very least it is not defined by sales rankings.

Most old "classics" bore me to death so I don't bother. I mostly read modern fiction.

Eden wrote:Most old "classics" bore me to death so I don't bother. I mostly read modern fiction.

Each to their own in terms of reading preference, but not all classic literature is old and old books certainly don't have a monopoly on being dull. You can find great books in a myriad of eras and cultures.

Don't know what would "classic" be. I just stick to what people consider them to be, I guess. Never thought to question that. I should question everything!!

As for personal preferences, personally I'm a huge sucker for the Divine Comedy and all the artwork and interpretations it has spawned.

dubiousdisc wrote:Don't know what would "classic" be. I just stick to what people consider them to be, I guess. Never thought to question that. I should question everything!!

As for personal preferences, personally I'm a huge sucker for the Divine Comedy and all the artwork and interpretations it has spawned.

I LOVE The Divine Comedy! I am also a big fan of Faust. :D/ When I started my new job, someone here gave me a book called God's Man that was very Faustian, and was composed entirely of Woodcuts. It's really amazing.

FAUST YES YES YES

Do you happen to have any pictures of those? I am picturing something very Gustave Doré-like here!

Speaking of which, Paradise Lost is also awesome.

I don't really have a point from which on a book is considered a "classic". It's a very fuzzy subject, and I usually go by the generic rule of "if there some obvious work behind a book and it's suitable for school then it most likely goes there". When I realized that most people have different concept of what is a classic and what is not I just decided to avoid using the term altogether in common conversations.

I used to read classic novels. My favorites are Pride and Prejudice ---because of the profound concept of all the characters' personalities and interaction all together. And also the fact that I simply just admire how the female protagonist can go beyond her time. ---and Wuthering Heights, until now I still have mixed feelings regarding with Heathcliff's characterization and his ending. And I just love the tragic romance in the dark creepy moors. haha. I have all the Bronte sister's novels too. I started reading classic novels when my uncle bought me a copy of Jane Eyre. Afterwards I went to Jane Austen's novels and some from Dickens. My favorite Dickens novel is Oliver Twist.

If I were to have some spare time, I would love to read classics again. I just enjoy engaging to the world in that time. I also must admit that I have memorize a lot of lines from P&P and Wuthering Heights.

As of this year, they re-published an interesting graphical versions of the covers for classic books to get the attention of young readers. I forgot where I have read the article.

I thought classics were literature that came from the classicism period? OH MAN people probably have already said that though.

I guess I'm more of a neoclassicism person because those books are easier to read (given that they were printed at a later date) and can be something I relate to.