Amassment Message Board

Let's start with something here.
I was always wandering how people would see the CLASSIC genre.

Does that means from the antique (Homer and his Iliad) going on during the dark ages (Dante and his Comedia Divina) or from the time when "romance" started like novels by Austen. And when it passes to modern? In 1950? or later?

Usually classics are regarded as texts included in the Western canon. I'm not even going to touch on the debate as to what should and should not be regarded as "classic" or "high art", but generally you'll find works from antiquity right through into the relatively modern era (Neruda, Whitman, Beckett) potentially considered as Western canon and therefore classic, high art.

I have to say, having wasted all these years studying literature, I feel it is impossible to give a single definite answer as to what is or is not a classic. Most of the time it's anything fancy by dead white dudes, but there's a hell of a lot more to the realm of classic literature than what the Western world has deemed is high art. So yeah, depending on who you ask can get a myriad of different answers. Classics = a rich tapestry of personal feels.

I don't consider "Classic" a genre, as classics fall in many different genres.

I'm not sure what is considered classic, but I'm with Shiori in that we shouldn't debate it here, lol.

My favorite novel that many people consider classic, I guess, is Albert Camus' The Stranger. I also really liked Great Expectations by Charles Dickens and Julius Cesar by Shakespeare.

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.