In an effort to help my wife with her blog and in an attempt to be literary; Have you ever wondered what makes a classic a classic? If you are like me, you sat through English class (or French, or Spanish, or German or well you get the picture) and some of the books you said," yes, okay! That is a classic." others you wondered what the literary powers were thinking. Some will argue that classics are in the eye of the beholder and that it is all subjective. Those that would disagree often use logical facts to try to prove their points. They may say something like the messages in that book are timeless and thus it’s a classic or it sold so many copies in successive generations, etc. But does that really make a book a classic?
Or is literature more based on how well it appeals to some one? Many books written are never published because they don’t “appeal’ to the agents or editors the book was sent to. Take Harry Potter by JK Rowling. She had tried several agents/editors before being accepted yet we can pretty much all agree that it has gained world-wide popularity. (Now you can disagree with it being a classic or well written but it is an international phenomenon.) Two things can be learned from this:
First, there are several very very very embarrassed agents/editors (actually my real point is that something being good is in the eye of the beholder these people are embarrassed because they DIDN’T see it as good). Second, that popularity may not necessarily make something a classic. So what do you think makes something a classic and do you know a book that should or shouldn’t be a classic and why?
For example, I had to read Brave new World, I hate a Brave New World and I understand its messages. But I don’t think it is a classic and think that the same messages could have been told in other ways. Yet I might argue that in CS Lewis’ books could be classics.