These are the archived discussions. To participate in active "Talk Literature" discussions go to the
homepage of ReadLiterature
Back To "Talk Literature" Archives
Posted by Lale on 3/3/2002, 13:58:48
I received the question below, can anyone help? What do you think of Norton Anthologies?
Also, what must we do to be *the* reputable source for such lists? We have the must-read/classics lists but we are not Harvard :-)
I have been searching for some time now for lists of must-read or classic novels comprised by very reputable sources (such as Harvard U.), but my search has yielded few results. I would greatly appreciate any information you could give me that might help me find such a list.
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 4/3/2002, 11:22:09, in reply to "Reputable classics' list"
While I think it is commendable to have the wish to read THE Classics, I am also sure there simply IS no such thing as a scientifically correct Classics reading list drawn up by (for instance) Harvard. First of al (but trivial): Harvard has no special reputation in the arts department as far as I know, mainly in science and business. Second: the study of literature is no science, it is not objective, and there is no correct list. Ask 100 literature professors to draw up a list of classics and you will get 100 different lists, each just as valid as the other. They would probably agree on certain titles, but that is as far as you will get. As a practical answer: maybe you could refer the person who asked this question to http://www.bibliomania.com/ . It is a useful site with lots of information and study guides on classic and not so classic literature (but as I said, what is a classic is for a great part a matter of personal preference).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 4/3/2002, 3:00:41, in reply to "Reputable classics' list"
There is no such thing as a classic, only authors who ran out of copyright.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 4/3/2002, 12:31:37, in reply to "Re: Reputable classics' list"
While I agree with Anna one hundred percent; Michael, there must be such a thing as a classic, even if only metaphorically.
The Beatles' "Let it be" and Nena's "Neun und Neunzig Luftballon" have both ran out of copyright but I'd like to think only one of them has survived the test of time.
To Ryan: If you can tell us your purpose we might be able to better understand the question and thus maybe provide some pointers. Check out the web site Anna suggests. Also, the publishers of classics provide their version of classics' lists inside the dust jackets of their books, or in the last few pages. I have such lists by Penguin Classics, by Modern Library and by Wordsworth (and they are all different, as Anna says they would be). Are those reputable enough? Check the back pages of any "classic" book you have at home. I can scan in the Modern Library's 100 books and mail it to you, if that would help?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 5/3/2002, 3:05:06, in reply to "Re: Reputable classics' list"
I am not going to feature T. S. Eliot's essay "What is a Classic," nor to repeat my review of Korda's "Making the List" (see the March issue of www.goldenasspublishing.com). I just pick up on a few points. Regardless how anybody defines a classic, in the distant and not so distant past, it belonged to the group of books, people were expected to read at school in order to establish and define their own cultural identity.
The Old Testament is an early example for such a canon. In ancient Rome of the 4th century the pagan opposition collected their own canon of classics - Virgil, Horace, Juvenal, Livius, Cicero - which are still with us; itÕs the reason why their texts came down to us relatively intact. It also created the model after which authors of a later age in most European literatures formed their own image and their own work. So show me the book that still manages to define my cultural identity.
This obviously has gone overboard. iIn this, our blessed postmodern age, "neighborhoods" and local dialects are supposed to be the substitute for culture. Well, as far as I am concerned, "local flavors" belong on the food channel. But the inevitable consequence of this baloney is the fact, that these days a classic seems to be a book the professors speak about, so that the rest of us can kick back and continue reading "Dining at Sbirro's" by Stanley Ellen.
In other words, a classic is the book nobody reads, even not at school. Because that is the best part: Shakespeare's "Macbeth" is still unavoidible, Dr. Johnson's "Rasselas" is gladly skipped. Perhaps one or the other teacher continues to torture the boys in his class with Jane Austin as a punishment, but that's as far as a teacher these days trusts his own capacity to civilize a horde of adolescent savages.
So my definition stands: there is no such thing as a classic, only authors who ran out of copyright. Because this is the other fact: most of the real good books are out of print. Pirat publishers like Everyman saw the opportunity and in 1906 created their lists of "immortal" classics. Series like "Modern Classics" followed suit - for the same reason: no royalties to pay.
Posted by Lale on 5/3/2002, 11:02:16, in reply to "Re: Reputable classics' list"
This is my view on it: Anything that stands the test of time is a classic.
{classic ~ adjective ~ judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind: a classic novel | a classic car.}
Sometimes it is the "highest quality" sometimes it is the "outstanding of its kind", sometimes it is both. In any case, it is not forgotten. Some people may have a hand in its not being forgotten, like you say, teachers, or money matters (publishers).
Even Andy Warhol is a classic now. Some Seinfeld episodes are classics. As I said before, even if metaphorically, symbolically, we single out some works as a "classic".
They don't force kids to watch "Sound of Music" in school but it is still a classic.
Yes. Then, they started to read one another's books to learn about their cultures, or to figure out what the fuss was all about. So, now in schools you don't only read your own, you read others' as well.
I don't have one (the book that still manages to define my cultural identity) either. But where would you be now if you hadn't read them?
You have read most books they are making my daughter read at school. Some of them you have even thought very highly of.
By the time it was my time, our school had replaced Macbeth with Julius Caeser in its English program. I must say, although painful at times, I quite enjoyed it. I even wrote a ditty about Ides of March. There are even jokes in it: "it was Greek to me."
- Cassius: Did Cicero say any thing?
Happy reading, classics or not.
Posted by Michael Sympson on 6/3/2002, 3:16:42, in reply to "Re: Reputable classics' list"
"Anything that stands the test of time is a classic." - Yes Lale. But not everything that stands the test of time obliges you to read it. As I said, I am not going to bicker over definitions, but I really think part of the parcel of a classic is that it is the book that obliges to be read. It may be many other things as well - but never without this clout of being an obligation.
Posted by Guillermo Maynez on 9/3/2002, 20:25:25, in reply to "Re: Reputable classics' list"
I completely agree with Anna about classics. But for our friend who asked, it would probably be a good idea to take a look at HArold Bloom's list in "The Western Canon".