Author's Note: In my house we are required to read classic books. So the other day when I was reading my chosen book I was thinking about what gives a book the right to be called a classic. These are just some thoughts on the subject.
In America people obsess over 'classic' books. Adults gush over them, children are told to read them, and people right excessive notes on them, but what gives a book the right to be called a classic? After all there are many other books that are just as good and loved.
Classic books could be books that were very well written or loved by everyone, but some books contradict this statement. For example The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was refused by the Concord Public Library Comittee and called trash. Although a lot of people loved it not everyone did so that reason wouldn't work. Perhaps classics are classics because they don't offend a certain group of people, but that wouldn't go either. The book Jane Eyre was said to be discrimanating the church, even though Charlotte Bronte the authortried to prove otherwise. If classic books are not classic because of any of the previous reasons then maybe they are classics because of some historical or deeper meaning, but once again some books don't have any of that. Alices Adventures in Wonderland or Alice in Wonderland has no historical or deeper meaning. It was merely written for the amusement of two children. Maybe that's it then maybe classics are classics because they are entertaining, but isn't just about every book entertaining to someone in someway?
So you see, there are many reasons why a classic could be a classic, but then something always contradicts them. In my opinion there souldn't be any certain books that are considered better than others, because there is no such thing as being better. The final question is what makes a classic a classic and why does it deserve to be called that?
Author's Note: Sorry it's kind of boring, and I'm not even sure if it makes sense, but if you have an oppinion on why a classic book is classic then please comment on it. Also if anyone has a suggestion on a better way to format it that would be great. ( Oh and I realize the last sentence contradicts itself with two questions, I just couldn't find a better way to word it)
It's so neat Claire, how you have all of these "theories" and then explain them using blog posts. I agree with everything you said about classic books. There are just a few spelling airs though. (hahaha)
ReplyDeleteThat's was a neat idea that you had and then you put it into a post. Nice job but like Abby said check your spelling!
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent entry, and I think you should return to the notion of defining what a classic is.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to italicize the introductory author's note to separate it from the rest of the text.
A classic, for me, is a representative of a new form of writing, a new style, voice, genre, or any technique really that breaks new ground. If not that, a classic may be the perfect example of a pre-existing form, a piece of writing that really helps define the form it takes. whether or not it is entertaining is questionable as that is so subjective. One more thing that I believe needs to e part of a book to make it categorically a classic:a classic should speak to the human condition in such a way that it is not time-bound. In other words, not something that can only be understood by people at the time it was written.