Is every Classic a masterpiece?

[Saif Qureshi]

We have seen people disregarding a contemporary work and labelling everything old as a classic..do you think so?

[Abraham Ozo]

Yes, I agree with this. People tend to tag every old literature as classic forgetting that there were also terrible writers then. I read some books and I became confused.

[G Duda]

Certainly not. Many very old books are bad. There are some very old Harlequins that very few people would consider to be 'masterpieces'. The thing with old books, though, barring the romance & children's genres, is that publishing houses were very strict for what they would & wouldn't publish. With the modern era, & the age of indie publishing, any old shmuck could say that they are a published author. In the old days, there were only so many publishing houses, & they largely tried to publish only the best of the best that they could. This is especially true when you consider just how time consuming & expensive printing used to be. But that doesn't mean that all classics, nor all old books, are masterpieces, or even good. We have plenty of professionally published books nowadays that are subpar, & not much has really changed

[Onyinyechi Obi]

I don’t think every Classic is a masterpiece. I have also read awful classics. But then again I ask myself is it a classic if it is awful? Is classic a perspective or a norm?

[Favy Moses]

Of course not all classic are masterpiece, just because there written a long time ago does not mean some are not terrible, have read a few classic that i was quit disappointing

[Andrew Darlington]

I do not buy that idea. Classical have quite a different level of uniqeness.

[Nalule Juliet]

Oh how do I say this
Yes and no
Most classics tend to get the appeal of amaster piece just because of their old age and that alone is exaggerated only on my part alone and I think it should be based on the content
So on my side i think not every classic is amaster piece