When I was first considering starting this blog, I told a friend all about it. After listening to my initial gush of excitement, she asked, “How are you going to decide what’s classic and what’s not?”
She stunned me. I hadn’t even considered the idea that I would be determining what is classic and what is not. I guess I thought there was this invisible, definitive list floating through the psyches of all English teacher types. Of course, it included the titles of all the broken-binded, yellow-paged, dusty ol’ stories we’ve been forced to teach for generations. We teach them because we read them in school, and our parents read them in school. We all know what the classics are, right?
Wrong.
I started a quest to define classic literature for myself and for this blog. I had no desire to define the term for everyone. Good thing, too, because I discovered that no one has really yet been able to do so. I did need a working definition for this project, though. What I discovered is that instead of seeking to settle on a limiting definition, I should try to create something more in tune with the pirate code in the Disney movies–something more like guidelines.
First, please understand that there is a difference between classical and classic literature. It’s generally accepted that classical pertains to works from great ancient civilizations. Classic is something different.
Time-tested
Nearly every source I studied agreed on one thing when it comes to determining what constitutes classic literature. It’s a work that must stand the test of time. In a November 2006 discussion on NPR, author Joan Didion suggested that if a book has seemed to make a significant impact for at least two generations, it might meet the test-of-time standard. This quality alone doesn’t put a work on the classics list. Maybe it should. I don’t know, but I don’t think any of the qualifications can be weighed independently.
Well-written
Another consideration must be the artistry of the piece. The brilliance or unique quality of the writing can certainly move one book to contender status and move others off. Although stylistic trends come and go, when the beauty or genius of a piece can be appreciated through that change, it’s probably because the piece is a classic. Think of the Lincoln Continental or Audrey Hepburn’s little black dress or Norman Rockwell’s paintings. None would be considered fashion forward today, but they are still praised for their classic style.
Inherently Influential
A third criteria includes a work’s influence. Some definitions focused on a work influencing the popularity of a genre or the style choices of other writers. I think we have to add to that the influencing of political, cultural, religious, or popular thought. The telling of unforgettable stories can work to change the hearts and minds of society. The most powerful ones should be considered classics. In fact, that same NPR interview discussed the idea of including non-fiction pieces as classic literature. I have to agree. Non-fiction stories have this same power.
Universally Understood
Finally, classic lit must be universally understood. Epic themes like love and loss, success and failure, war and peace are basic conflicts of humanity. When we come to understand characters who deal with these issues across time and across culture, we come to understand who we are, why we are, and how on earth we came to this point.
This is exactly why I cringe when I hear English teachers disdaining the inclusion of classic lit in the classroom. Our students need an understanding of this world outside of the one they are currently experiencing. If we expose them only to books that they see as relevant and don’t do the work of helping them see relevance in classics, we fail them. And when we fail our students on this important issue, we fail society. We fail ourselves.
In the end, I could have saved myself a lot of time trouble and adopted Mark Twain’s idea of a classic. He claims it’s a book everyone wants to have read but nobody has. When I think of books like Moby Dick and most of Henry James’ works, I might be tempted to agree. In this case, however, I must disagree with Mr. Twain’s observation, in part. Yes, a classic should be a book that most everyone would want to have read. However, I hope this blog will encourage us all to discredit the second part of his claim.
If a classic is all the things I mentioned here–time transcendent, aesthetically elevated, culturally influential, and universally understood–then we must read them. We must not allow them to become dusty museum curiosities. In fact, it was also Mark Twain who said that there is no difference between the man who can’t read and the man who won’t. In a world where there is so much attention on the idea of privilege, perhaps we should consider the privilege of reading. If you can, but you don’t, you are wasting your privilege.
Years later, Ray Bradbury echoed Twain’s sentiment with even more dangerous implications when he said, “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture, just get people to stop reading them.”
I appreciate my friend asking me the initial question–how am I going to decide what is classic and what isn’t. I’ve nailed down my criteria, but I want to caution you. Don’t think you already know which of the dusty ol’ required reading novels you’ll see discussed here. As you return, I think you’ll be surprised how the list keeps growing. In fact, I hope you add to it. I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert on teaching or reading or even on classics. What I do know is that teaching, just like learning, is most effective when we do it together.
What is your definition of classic literature, and what titles should we cover on this blog? Leave your answer in the comment below. Thank you.
Be well. Read well. Live well.
Leave a Reply