What Makes A Classic?

A tradition in my high school included seniors signing squares on the block walls in various classrooms. Sometimes they just wrote their name and graduation year, others wrote funny quotes from that class, or if they were artistically gifted, drew a little picture or cartoon.  I think I mentioned this several years ago in a post about judging literature. Throughout my junior English class, while confronted with a list of "supposed" classics, some of which I really disliked, an idea sparked in my brain that I kept stored away until a year later when I could come back and sign that wall. I picked a block right next to the clock so students would read it everyday. It read:

"What makes a classic a classic? You Do!"

 

For those who have been with me awhile, my love of literature is no secret. I love Shakespeare, as seen in several posts on his works. I love the scriptures and the words of living prophets. I love the power of words and believe profoundly in the influence they have in our lives. Most recently, I vented about how the common core is eliminating classic novels in the curriculum. All of the linking is to back up my claim of a passionate relationship with literature. After all, this is me. (This is kind of fun- making you go back and read previous posts from over the years : )

 

Back to the classics. What defines classic literature? This is probably the most endless and unsolvable discussion in the literary world, but why? Why does it matter that we have a set definition or group of novels that falls perfectly in this category? Besides the potential revenue for an author that reaches classic status, why do we feel the need to categorize? Perhaps part of it is that we want to know and understand this base of common knowledge seemingly shared by the world; references in t.v. shows, movies, the news, and daily conversation are all steeped in a background of literature with the assumption that, in general, people will connect to that. It's a way we connect--to each other, to the world, and to brilliant or inspired thought. Maybe another element has to do with helping readers know where to start. As a writer and a reader, the sheer volume of printed ( and now electronic) works is overwhelming. Where do we even start? So to help that out, educational systems and scholars began creating the "Western canon"- a collection of literature (as well as art and music) that has been a large influence in shaping western culture, that has the greatest artistic merit. However helpful this can be occasionally, it seems to have created more conflict. At times, from certain perspectives, the canon can seem like a haughty elitist bunch. I prefer to think of the canon like the Pirates Code- more like guidelines than actual rules. And finally, I honestly believe that in reading literature, we define and discover ourselves. Whether we like or agree with it, the very act of deciding whether we do is enlightening.

 

 

Considering all that, whichever reason or combination of reasons that push us to define classics, there can be several different groups of what can be called "classic". Lowest on the totem pole there would have to be a group some refer to as classic due to the age of the material, i.e. classic Greek. The erudite scholar tends to shy away from labeling priceless scripts anything so common as "old" when "classic" sounds so beautiful. But there is an element of truth here, that ancient texts like Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, etc, offer a unique and much needed perspective; advice and insight that has remained true throughout time has given many a reliable base. Goethe once said that “Ancient works are classical not because they are old, but because they are powerful, fresh, and healthy."

 

If you read forums and readers boards, common answers to this question include "universality", "timelessness", "truth", or "stylistically unique or perfect". In 1850 Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve crafted an insightful response: 

 

“The idea of a classic implies something that has continuance and consistence, and which produces unity and tradition, fashions and transmits itself, and endures…. 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; who has discovered some moral and not equivocal truth, or revealed some eternal passion in that heart where all seemed known and discovered; who has expressed his thought, observation, or invention, in no matter what form, only provided it be broad and great, refined and sensible, sane and beautiful in itself; who has spoken to all in his own peculiar style, a style which is found to be also that of the whole world, a style new without neologism, new and old, easily contemporary with all time.”

 

I love that!- "is one who has enriched the human mind, increased its treasure, and caused it to advance a step." There is not just one singular requirement for a classic; you must look at impact and import, as well as style and content. For example, while I enjoy Uncle Tom's Cabin, I recognize that it is a fairly mediocre novel in and of itself. However, the far-reaching and explosive effect it had on the United States before the Civil War launched the novel to a place among the classics. And then there is Maus, a graphic novel depicting memoirs of the Holocaust, which took a unique approach and captured the world. On the other hand, you can look at Tolstoy's War and Peace or Anna Karenina-- stylistically complex and beautifully written, but in recent years I find fewer and fewer people are reading his works. What I'm trying to say is that there is no cut off, set in stone criteria, disqualifiers, or stipulations.

 

Perhaps the most well-know essay on the subject was written by Italo Calvino in the 1980's in which he famously said, “A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say”. To a degree, there is a desire and envy to create something that is never finished, that is relatable for your great-great-great grandchildren. But in the end, I think it truly comes back to what I wrote on my high school wall- what makes a classic a classic? You do. Knowing what I know now, maybe I would've written something about the difference between canon and classic, taking time to read those novels even though you hate it, and deciding for yourself. But that would be a little long for a block. Calvino says, "There is nothing for it but for all of us to invent our own ideal libraries of classics." Like the way I have read Little Women until the covers fell off and every page is smudged and earmarked. Or how Penelope from the self titled book and movie loves a book written by a "little no one".

 

What are some of "your" classics?