OnlineBookClub.org

I feel that the Classics refer to a list of books that were written a set time ago and are still memorable to date. But is that really what a classic is? How old does a book have to be to be considered a classic? Is a book written in the 1980's not a classic whereas one written in the 1970s is one? Will great books of modern time be considered classics after 20-30 years?

This is a really interesting question and I wish I had a good answer for it! I would say that age itself doesn't make a classic. In my opinion, a classic should be a book that has a major impact on the society of the time AND is timeless enough to speak to future generations. I feel like we probably need to give a book at least 10 years (maybe 20) before we can determine what kind of longevity it'll have. I definitely think that many of our modern great books definitely have the potential to be considered classics eventually.

That is a difficult question. Google to the rescue. Wikipedia defines a classic as "a book accepted as being exemplary or noteworthy, for example through an imprimatur such as being listed in a list of great books, or through a reader's personal opinion." A lengthy discussion follows as different authors from time immemorial have their own views.

Thanks for your views CarrieMe and Miriam. It sounds like you can have instant classics.

I agree with some of the above, to me it's about being timeless, the book needs to have a message or an impact that will affect generations to come, as well as making a mark during it's time.

I have to agree with you guys on the time factor. There are definitely books that can be instant classics (The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak or The Handmaiden's Tale, by Margaret Atwood come to mind.

But I think their is also collective societal decision behind a book becoming a classic. For example Moby Dick, by Herman Melville is considered a classic, but Melville's other publications are often ignored. Somewhere in the past, the literary world decided that Moby Dick was worthy of the title of "classic", and Melville's other works were not.

Additionally, I think there are works that are considered classics because of when they were written, or rather because of their survival. Nearly everything that has survived intact from Greco-Roman times is considered to be a classic. These sources are useful, and they do tell us a lot about life in ancient times, but sometimes I have to think they are "classics" solely because they are the only surviving works from the time period.

To me, it has to be older, at least 5 years+ but preferably 10-20 years or more (though some/most classics are hundreds of years old). Classics should usually have some timelessness about them - something that makes them special or memorable through the ages - a moral, a clever spin or tale, or some other unique quirk that distinguishes from the riffraff, in my opinion.

That's an interesting question. One that I'm still thinking about.

The first thought that came to mind was a classic is something that kid's would be assigned to read in middle and high schools. But, to go farther than that, I would say that a classic is a book that would be enjoyed by many across multiple generations. Despite the change in language, in thinking, and lifestyle, a classic can still entertain its readers and the readers can still relate to the story.

I would define a classic book by its content not by its age. A classic book is one whose theme continues to be relevant long after it was published. A classic book could talk about the dangers of government corruption or the complexities of the human spirit.

I totally agree. I think that the message of the book is much more important than when it was written. If people are still impressed by it and if they find themselves in those pages, it can be considered a classic. Who knows? Maybe in a few years "Hunger games" or "Harry Potter" will be cosidered classics too.

a great book, one written so well and covers issues of the past and present that can also be applied in the future. A book that, for lack of better words, can only be described as priceless. Its a treasure

This is an interesting question, and one I think readers and writers alike will always grapple with. In my mind, classics are often defined by their place in the literary canon. In academic settings, books that are part of the literary canon have been studied and evaluated over time and determined to have some inherent, lasting value. This is a dissatisfying measurement, however, because it both implies that there must be some unnamed elite group deciding what's canon, and necessitates an unspecified length of time after publication before classic status can be gained. I think there are newer books, or books that have traditionally been seen as genre/pop fare, that are just as deserving of classic status as the books we studied in school.

I would think a classic needs to have a sense of timelessness to it. A good number of people in every era will find value in a true classic.

If one would attempt to define "classic" outside of academic institutions, I think Jorge Sette does a good job in giving an idea on what a "classic" is from his "What do Classic Novels Have in Common?".

Books released more than 30 years ago, which were written with a message or a story that went beyond the specific context of the time and place it was written in.