After looking at many lists that all share a similar title like "All-time Best Classic Novels" and "Top 10 Classic Novels," I've realized that almost all of the novels mentioned are from the first half of the 20th century. Tons of classic novels were written in the 1800s as well. I love reading, and I have to admit, most of the books I read are considered to be class novels. I think it's so weird though that the latest classic novel on the "All-Time Best Classic Novels" to be published was in 1987: Toni Morrison's Beloved. The past two decades lack classic novels according to most of the websites I've seen.
There are so many authors today that have written great novels. Some of these new novels, in my opinion, should be considered to be classics. Cormac Macarthy has written some great novels over the years. The new graphic novels are becoming hits. The Harry Potter series defines a generation. Why are books like these being neglected?
Is it too soon to consider these books as classics? I think the authors of these great books deserve to be respected with the influencial authors of the past. What do you think?
Great questions, Leif. I think that critics are always slightly hesitant to call contemporary works "classics." One thing that struck me about the Kazin article we read was how Kazin spoke of the cultured classes of the 19th century not discussing Shakespeare because he was seen as too bawdy and common.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely put Cormac McCarthy up against any of the writers on those "best novels" lists, and I think graphic novels will be on those lists in the future (The Watchmen was listed on Time magazine's top 100 novels of the 20th century).
I enjoyed Harry Potter, but I'm not sure if I've made up my mind about it being a classic work of literature on par with, say, War and Peace!
I agree with you. Many novels that are coming out today deserve the respect of literature such as War and Peace (ha) but I think time will tell. Maybe it is too soon to judge the effect such books have had on readers, or whether they are timeless tales. I'm sure within the next ten years we will see more inclusions to such lists.
ReplyDeleteI think to define a book as a classic it must pass the test of time. For example, while anyone from our generation with half a brain enjoys the Harry Potter series, will the books be cherished just as much by our children? To be a classic, a novel should be well-liked and respected just as much when it comes out as it is decades after. I have no doubt that Harry Potter will be among these books.
ReplyDeleteBecause graphic novels are such a new thing, they probably won't be on any lists for some time. While they are successful now, will they still have that kind of recognition thirty years from now?
I agree with whats been said already, but overall I think it's unfortunate that we don't really "see" what classic books really are these days. I think both rachel and jenna have good points though, to become a true classic the book needs to be in circulation for awhile so more and more people can begin to agree that it is indeed a classic. Hopefully after more people have read the new classic we can recognize what they really are.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good points here. First off, there indeed have been many classics written before 1900. Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn and The Scarlet Letter are great examples of this.
ReplyDeleteOn the other end of the spectrum, many modern novels are being disregarded as classics. The Harry Potter series should definitely be regarded as such; I and others already consider them as classics. While contemporary books like these surely are classics to-be, they are not considered classics (like War and Peace, for example) because they have not done two things: they have not shaped the view of America or been studied by generations, or both. Take The Great Gatsby as an example. The message of the book shapes the way many look at America during the 1920's, and it has been sudied consistently by both high school and college kids alike since its publication. I still wouldn't rule the Harry Potter series out as being regarded as a classic: it just has to wait it's turn.
I think classics are often considered to older. We can look at Steinbeck, his Grapes of Wrath was and instant success and given awards but it was not considered a classic of that time period until much later. I agree with Kunkle, although Harry Potter was one of the most interesting plots and a huge success, reading JK's style from a literaturistic view, we don't see the power and prose that Grapes of Wrath or Tale of Two Cities had. The books had meanings behind the stories but it seemed that there didnt' need to be discussion between people about what kind of goal Rowling was trying to get across to the reader.
ReplyDeleteI completely see the meaning behind Jenna's words; that a novel should be well-liked and respected just as much when it comes out. That's really what it all boils down to. But not only that, but the words behind the words, just like Alex said. What message are we going to leave for those after us, that Harry Potter was a great read or a great work? That it challenged the very heart of our society, or that magic is fun? A classic is a hard thing to determine, but these two points should be under consideration.
ReplyDeleteTo be a classic, I think that a book must maintain popularity over the years. However,I don't think it has to be just as respected when it comes out as later. Plenty of books have been overlooked by the people whose generation they were published in, but they can be "discovered" later. So, I don't know if books in so recent of years can be considered classics. But, especially if we read those books to the next generation and expose them to it, they can become classics fairly soon.I believe Harry Potter will be a classic, not only because of how many of our generation have read it, but because of the impact it has had on the world in general. I almost cringe to say it, but the Twilight Series will probably have a lasting effect as well. Not to say that it will truly merit the label "classic." I don't think the writing is up to par with others in that category. However, simply because it is so much a part of our culture right now, I don't think it will be so easily forgotten. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
ReplyDeleteI think all classics start out as great novels. The thing that separates the classics from just great novels is that they stand the test of time. So sure we can go on saying that these new contemporary works are great, and hey some of them WILL become classics and I'm sure they will deserve that title, but until they do become classics we will have to just have to proclaim their greatness and wait it out.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with many of the people above. To consider a novel a classic, it needs to be able to be appreciated and enjoyed by multiple generations. It needs versatility to withstand the changes in interest and value as time continues to tick
ReplyDeleteI do think part of the reason is that critiques are hesitant to consider recent books classic novels just because they're newer; they feel they need to fit into a broader literary scope before they make that call. But I do think you're onto something. Even Watchmen was written in the eighties. I'm no where near the reader you are, but I would be interested in who would be considered the great novelists of our generation, and I agree with you that those lists should contain these newer names.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole though, I think the biggest problem is that its too soon. Contrary to what others may believe, I don't think our generation is completely devoid of creative minds. Like they say, hind sight is always 20/20, and I think most critics hold off on recent material just because they want to get it right.