- It can be read, reread, and read again
- You are unafraid to bring it up to the club
- It can be read aloud without the slightest bit of embarassment
- You will find new things in it every time
- It improves, even on brief review
- It withstands the test of time, fads and fashion
- It is made better and deeper in almost every medium: miniseries, movie or audio version
- It can speak to you at different times of your life - or reinforce the things it has always said so eloquently
- It is its own world
- Its themes are often, but not always, big ones - courtship, love, marriage, war, death, friendship
- It is one of a kind, or first of its kind
- You feel lucky to be able to enter the mind of the author, whose ideas will surprise you even the second time around
She also quotes Italo Calvino (author and literary critic) who says, "A classic is a book which has never exhausted all it has to say to its readers."
What do you think of her definition(s) of a classic and what is yours?
4 comments:
I've thought about this since the last post and I think my definition of a classic (the very short version) is a book that exudes an undeniable artisitc craftsmanship and you can tell there is something special about it...EVEN IF you didn't like the book. There are classics that I don't care for but I couldn't deny that they are classics. Also, I think her second and third "criteria" are silly. And I sort of disagree with her seventh criteria which says that they are made better in almost every medium...I enjoy movies made based on books but I would think that a classic would be its best and deepest in its original form.
Oh, and you might want to check out Italo Calvino's book called Invisible Cities...it's really interesting. I have a copy if anyone wants to borrow it sometime.
ok, here's what I am thinking of in my definition of a classic:
meaningful in every time period/ transcends time (and has proven this by withstanding the test of time)
has a general, universal appeal
is exceptionally well-written, above average
is somewhat original in some sense or has done something better than other author's attempts
can be re-read countless times
now about liking- i do realize that there are some classics which are undeniably classics but just aren't appealing to me and to many others. i am torn about this because in some sense i think a classic should be appealing. i think most people should want to read it and enjoy it. i think it should touch people deeply, not turn us off. and i am not talking about it being a happy story instead of a tragic one, i mean instead that it should be a story we desire to know.
Becky, I think universal appeal is important also. A classic should be a book that MOST people like. But like you, I am okay saying that there are going to be classics that I'll enjoy reading more than others.
Post a Comment