For the first time, I am going to post an essay that I wrote for one of my university classes. I had to discuss what makes a book a classic, and who (if anyone) gets to decide.
Classics:
Who
gets
to
decide?
by
Andre
Landwer-Johan
When studying,
or even
discussing literature,
one will
often come
across the
term “classic”.
It is
a term
used as
a descriptor
of a
piece of
writing, normally
that piece
of writing
being a
novel. When
referring to
a book
as a
classic, the
speaker is
regularly using
it as
a way
to classify
the work
being spoken
of as
somehow superior
to non-classics.
What is
it that
makes a
piece of
work classic?
Is there
a set
criteria of
what makes
a novel
a classic,
or is
the question
a purely
subjective one?
I believe
that there
is an
objective means
of measuring
whether or
not a
book is
a classic,
but it
may not
be what
you would
first expect.
For a
book to
become a
classic, it
must stand
the test
of time.
If one
is to
stick to
using terms
traditionally, “a
classic is
a work
written in
ancient Greek
or Latin”
(Lidden) and
widely studied
in scholarly
institutions. Looking
at slightly
more recent
times, books
considered to
be classic
were used
in schools
as a
method of
teaching “Standard
English”. (Guillory,
pp. 235) When
education began
to become
common place
in the
English middle
class, a
method of
learning more
refined, and
standardised speech
was considered
a necessity.
Thus, “works
of
English
literature
were
collected
into
anthologies
comprising
a
selection
of
the
best
in
each
genre;
and
these
anthologies
which
looked
very
much
like
the
Norton
or
Oxford
anthologies
of
our
day,
were
employed
in
the
schools
as
a
means
of
teaching
and
disseminating
Standard
English”
(235). Essentially, the
definition of
“classic” began
as a
more objective
concept as
opposed to
a subjective
one. Books
were selected
for their
perceived merits
by a
group of
scholars, focusing
on quality
of writing
and adherence
to “Standard
English”. By
selecting specific
books to
be considered
worthy of
being taught
in the
classroom, scholars
helped promote
proper usage
of grammar
in speech
and writing,
through the
medium of
stories. This
lead to
the creation
of a
“canon” of
books, and
books in
that canon
were considered
to be
classic.
What makes
a book
a classic
now? High
quality writing,
while desirable,
is hardly
an indicator
of an
enjoyable story.
What reason
is there
to read
a fictional
novel if
the story
is dull?
For a
book to
be widely
considered as
classic, not
only does
the writing
have to
be of
high quality,
but it
must have
a story
capable of
engaging a
wide audience.
I believe
that a
strong, engaging
story is
in fact
more important
than “correct”
or “proper”
writing. Take,
for example,
the beginning
lines of
The Catcher
in the
Rye
by
J.D.
Salinger,
a
book
widely
regarded
as
a
classic:
“If you really want to hear about it, the first thing
you'll probably want to know is where I was born, an what my lousy
childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before
they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't
feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.” (Salinger,
1) Salinger's style of writing can hardly be considered grammatically
correct, yet The Catcher in the
Rye is
often
referred
to
as
a
classic,
and
is
even
taught
in
some
schools.
However,
due
to
the
lack
of
grammatical
correctness
within
the
book,
it
would
have
been
prevented
from
entering
the
classical
canon
used
in
schools
in
an
older
time.
This
leads
one
to
conclude
that
books
no
longer
need
be
in
the
canon
of
higher
literature
to
be
considered
classic.
Despite
many
considering
The Catcher in the
Rye to
be
classic,
there
are
also
a
great
deal
of
people
who,
not
only
do
not
feel
the
book
is
a
classic,
but
actually
actively
dislike
the
work.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
fictional
novel
is
a
piece
of
art,
and
art
is
subjective.
Yes,
one
can
speak
of
art
in
objective
terms,
but
these
terms
only
serve
to
state
basic
facts,
such
as
“the
book
is
in
English”
or
“the
book
was
written
in
1951”. In
recent
vernacular
the
word
“classic”
has
started
to
be
used
more
as
a
way
of
describing
ones
opinion
of
a
piece
of
art
as
opposed
to
being
used
to
objectively
say
a
work
is
in
the
canon
of
books
widely
taught
by
educational
institutions.
Recently,
even
some
graphic
novels
have
been
referred
to
as
classic
(Lidden),
and
one
can
certainly
not
say
Watchmen is
widely
taught
in
schools.
If
someone
does
not
like
a
certain
book,
whether
or
not
it
is
widely
regarded
by
the
public
as
a
classic,
they
are
not
likely
to
describe
the
book
as
such,
and
even
if
they
do,
it
may
be
used
in
a
slightly
derogatory
way.
This
brings
us
to
the
question,
what
makes
a
book
a
classic,
and
who
gets
to
decide?
I
feel
Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve put it rather well: “A true
classic, as I should like to hear it defined, is an author who has
enriched the human mind, increased its treasure, and caused it to
advance a step.” (Sainte-Beuve) By this definition, for a book to
be classic it must be worth something, in that it furthers the
development of the minds of its readers. Once again, whether or not
one feels a book has helped them grow in some way is a largely
subjective matter. The most objective means of measuring whether or
not a book is to be considered classic is simply time (although the
amount of time required is once again, debatable). If a book can
stand the test of time, and still be widely read long after
publication, it can be considered a classic. I feel this is an
accurate way to judge whether or not a book is indeed classic, as a
book that is of poor quality, or simply irrelevant will fade away.
For every Great Expectations
there
is
bound
to
have
been
countless
books
written
that
we
no
longer
remember.
In
conclusion,
it
is
simply
time
that
makes
a
book
a
classic.
No
one
person,
or
small
group
of
people
decide
a
book
is
a
classic,
it
is
a
decision
made
by
society
as
a
whole.
If
a
book
can
stand
the
test
of
time,
and
be
widely
read
in
a
world
it
was
not
written
in,
that
book
is
a
classic.
References:
Lidden,
Daniel.
“What
Are
Classic
Novels?”
Wisegeek.
Web.
29 July
2013.
Guillory,
John.
“Canon.”
In
Frank
Lentricchia
and
Thomas
McLaughlin
(eds.).
Critical
Terms
for
Literary Study.
Chicago and
London: University
of Chicago
Press, 1995. 233‐249.
Salinger,
J.D.
The
Catcher
in
the
Rye.
New
York.
Bantam.
1951. Print.
Sainte-Beuve, Charles
Augustin. “What
is
a
Classic?”
Literary and Philosophical
Essays. Vol.
32. 1909-14. Bartleby.com
Print.
29 July
2013.
