Classic vs Contemporary

[Colette Jones]

I try to strike a balance between classic and contemporary, and also between fiction and non-fiction. I don't feel that a person is "well read" if they read novel after novel after novel, but never any poetry or non-fiction. Such people strike me as slightly obsessive.

Count me as obsessed! I hardly ever read non-fiction (except the newspaper, and the non-fiction element is questionable) and even less often poetry.

I don't count myself as well-read necessarily. Some of my friends would, but it is only relative. Some of my face-to-face book group only read the one book a month that we do together. To them I am well-read.

I read novels because I love to read novels. For me it is a hobby. I didn't study literature, nor will I ever, most likely. A side effect of my obsession with novels is that I love to discuss them with people, hence my hope for more group reads on the forum.

Knowing that more recent authors can be and are considered classics, I'd say I probably prefer classic to non-classic, but not when considering what I thought was meant by classic when I started this discussion.

A roundabout sentence that I hope makes sense?

[Sevigne]

The people around me read the IRS code. They read only tax law and wonder why they can't learn to write English properly.

I did not consider this to be a question of what we should read so much as which of the two categories is superior and why. That is indeed a very subjective matter.

As to what we should read, the mere fact that I started with Huckleberry Finn, read all of Dickens and then moved on to Horace and Junvenal seems to bespeak the fact that I was born a Classicist. I did not choose to be what I am. God made me this way.

I'm too old now to want to go against the grain. I have not placed an absolute ban on contemporary authors as witness my love of Penelope Fitzgerald. In fact, the last three novels I've read have been written since 1970.

But given a choice I'm going for the triple-decker novels deplored by V. Woolf.

[saliotthomas]

Count me as obsessed! I hardly ever read non-fiction (except the newspaper, and the non-fiction element is questionable) and even less often poetry.

Obsessed too...

As for classic or contemporary,i like both as long as they are well written.
I can't find now an exemple of a bad classic novel.
It could be a thread "Bad or boring classic novels".

[Eric]

Alright Colette, you're obsessed. I just claim that if you read non-fiction, you would understand some things in the newspapers better, and get more depth of knowledge.

In the papers today are the Gaza business and the fact that the Russian-Ukrainian quarrel is causing half of Europe to be low on gas supplies for heating and cooking. If you know more about Russia and the Soviet Bloc, and about Israel and the Arab world, the context of both conflicts becomes much more clear. Otherwise you just react to the sensationalist bits of the news, without understanding the underlying trends.

"Classic" hopefully means that enough thinking people have read the book and commented positively on it. But as I keep repeating, what is important is who these people are, and whether they are doing it because they think the book worthwhile, or whether they are in the marketing department of a publishing house. Too many people automatically accept that if the book belongs to the Penguin Classics and other series, it is automatically a "classic". Often "classic" means a reasonably good 19th century book that can now be reprinted without paying the copyright holder royalties. Have you ever thought of that?

I read novels because I find them relaxing or introduce me to new worlds. But "classic" isn't a static quality. Some 20 years ago, Anthony Powell was half-forgotten as an author; published, but not discussed that much. Now you can find things by him in every well-stocked bookshop. And right now, no one any longer appears to read Charles Morgan; one day there'll be a revival, then he'll become a "classic". John Buchan will get a big boost, now that his "Thirty-Nine Steps" was remade as a film and shown on the BBC at Christmas time. But his reputation had been gradually dwindling for some while. Now he'll hit the "classic" jackpot again.

[Colette Jones]

I can't find now an exemple of a bad classic novel.
It could be a thread "Bad or boring classic novels".

The term "bad" will just never work for classic novels. For them to be classic, it must have appealed to a great number of learned people.

Even having pointed out what I think is ridiculous about Wuthering Heights, I still couldn't go so far as saying it's "bad". I'm sure there are loads of boring ones though!

Edit: Lord of the Rings comes to mind (boring, not bad!)

[Colette Jones]

Alright Colette, you're obsessed. I just claim that if you read non-fiction, you would understand some things in the newspapers better, and get more depth of knowledge.

In the papers today are the Gaza business and the fact that the Russian-Ukrainian quarrel is causing half of Europe to be low on gas supplies for heating and cooking. If you know more about Russia and the Soviet Bloc, and about Israel and the Arab world, the context of both conflicts becomes much more clear. Otherwise you just react to the sensationalist bits of the news, without understanding the underlying trends.

You're giving me too much credit - I don't read those articles, sorry! I know I should.

"Classic" hopefully means that enough thinking people have read the book and commented positively on it. But as I keep repeating, what is important is who these people are, and whether they are doing it because they think the book worthwhile, or whether they are in the marketing department of a publishing house. Too many people automatically accept that if the book belongs to the Penguin Classics and other series, it is automatically a "classic". Often "classic" means a reasonably good 19th century book that can now be reprinted without paying the copyright holder royalties. Have you ever thought of that?

I think we've found that I don't have a clue as to how to define a classic, but the surprise to me is that no one else does either!

[Eric]

Regarding "Wuthering Heights", I wonder how the novel would have read, had Charlotte not excised most of her sister's Yorkshire dialect dialogue, because it would have been incomprehensible to people outside Yorkshire, or even the West Riding as it then was. Is it a classic now, thanks to Charlotte? Would it have remained an obscure dialect novel, had not Charlotte interfered?

I quite agree that there is no watertight definition of "classic". But as I say, I think that some people do think that there is a real, objective standard, when in reality, the whims of Penguin, Wordsworth, Everyman and a few other popular series seem to give the impression that they are following some mysterious canon - which in fact doesn't exist. But making people imagine that they are reading "classics", i.e. worthwhile literature, helps sell books.

[liehtzu]

Future Shock: from Playboy interview:

Alvin Toffler: What do you want to accomplish or leave behind--or should this be of no concern to the writer?

Vladimir Nabokov: Well, in this matter of accomplishment, of course, I don't have a 35-year plan or program, but I have a fair inkling of my literary afterlife. I have sensed certain hints, I have felt the breeze of certain promises. No doubt there will be ups and downs, long periods of slump. With the Devil's connivance, I open a newspaper of 2063 and in some article on the books page I find: "Nobody reads Nabokov or Fulmerford today." Awful question: Who is this unfortunate Fulmerford?

Thanks for that link. That site has almost all of the Nabokov interviews, and they're all terrific.

[Eric]

Yes thanks, Nnyhav and indeed Liehtzu for drawing our attention to the website here. It does indeed list all the interviews and is also a boon for those who know Russian well enough to explore Nabokov from that angle. I must try to get hold of the collected works of Fulmerford some day...

There are a lot of his stories there in Russian, and for the exclusive reader, even the Ukrainian translation of "Lolita":

Лолiта, свiтло мого життя, вогонь моїх чересел. Грiх мiй, душа моя.

Ло-лi-та: кiнчик язика виконує шлях у три сходинки з пiднебiння вниз, щоб на третьому штовхнутися в зуби. Ло. Лi. Та.

When the gas taps have been turned off, and you're reduced to shivering in the kitchen when it's minus 15 degrees Celsius outside, you can still enjoy the antics of "Г.Г.".

Such is art and life.

[Liam]

I can't find now an exemple of a bad classic novel.
It could be a thread "Bad or boring classic novels".

Thomas, try Oliver Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield (1766). Absolutely NOTHING happens in that book.

Although I can see why it was so influential, I also couldn't get through Samuel Richardson's Clarissa (1748)--over 1500+ pages (in my edition) of endless, repetitious letters (a la Les Liaisons Dangereuses).

Unless you're a medievalist (like me) or simply a lover of "Arthuriana," you will probably hate Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1470).

I'm sure there's more, still. Do start that thread.

[saliotthomas]

Good.
I've got one.
Le roman de la Momie by Theophile Gautier.Pages after pages of description,not bad but very,very boring.
One of the books i was stuck with so i read it twice.

[Eric]

Another question about the nature of a classic author, apart from that he or she wrote long ago, concerns the number of works.

Most, but certainly not all, authors that become classics have written a substantial body of work. One prime example is Dickens who wrote umpteen novels, some voluminous. Or Balzac, who wrote umpteen more than even Dickens.

Then there are people such as Bruno Schulz, Jorge Lu?s Borges and Katherine Mansfield, whose fame rests on a relatively small number of short-stories. All three of these are perhaps "modern classics". Plus "one-famous-novel" authors, such as Alain-Fournier with "Le Grand Meaulnes".

Do any of the rest of you feel that quantity affects classic status, except in the obvious way that the more books an author publishes, the more visible he becomes over time?

[Sevigne]

I don't think that quantity of work matters when deciding who is or isn't a classic. Only one of Cervantes' novels is readily available today but that one keeps him on any list of classics. Same for Lampedusa.

Of all of Borges extant writings, my favorite piece is his essay on the translators of the Arabian Nights. For me, Borges' classics status rests on those few pages.

[saliotthomas]

Same for Lampedusa.

If i may Madame la marquise,there is another Lampedusa Le Professeur et la sir?ne and you even might be able to get it here Le Professeur et la Sir?ne: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Louis Bonalumi: Amazon.fr: Livres

This said,i totally agree with you.

[miercuri]

Thomas, try Oliver Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield (1766). Absolutely NOTHING happens in that book.

Although I can see why it was so influential, I also couldn't get through Samuel Richardson's Clarissa (1748)--over 1500+ pages (in my edition) of endless, repetitious letters (a la Les Liaisons Dangereuses).

Unless you're a medievalist (like me) or simply a lover of "Arthuriana," you will probably hate Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1470).

I'm sure there's more, still. Do start that thread!

Regards,
Liam

Add to the list Radishchev's Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. I am presently struggling with this rather short but exasperating 18th century novel. I must read it for an exam next week. Thankfully, after the end of the semester I won't ever have to return to it!
Come to think about it, most 18th century classics ar not easily enjoyed by modern readers, whereas 19th century authors often make up lists of favourites.

As for Samuel Richardson, I intend to read Pamela one day, only becuase I am rather curious about Henry Fielding's pardoy - Shamela...

[Sevigne]

Thanks for the heads up!

If i may Madame la marquise,there is another Lampedusa Le Professeur et la sir?ne and you even might be able to get it here Le Professeur et la Sir?ne: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Louis Bonalumi: Amazon.fr: Livres

This said,i totally agree with you.

[Sevigne]

No, what constitutes a classic is distinctly quality and not quantity.

A classic leaves echos in your mind. A classic sticks to your mental ribs. You might find yourself referring a moral quandry to a favorite author or character of a classic work.

What constitutes a classic is subjective but when numberless readers throughout many generations have made the same judgement regarding a book then it can safely be considered a Classic without too much fear of contradiction.

And a classic work is contemporary. It does not age.

[Eric]

You shouldn't misunderestimate the power of classics on bookshop sales, but I agree that it is a fairly weighty argument for being a classic is when a lot of people like a particular book, quite independently of other readers.

I must say that the following idiom is a bit of a classic in itself:

A classic sticks to your mental ribs.

I can't really work out the image: does your brain have ribs? And is the classic fighting its way into your brain or out of it?

A happier comment is:

And a classic work is contemporary. It does not age.

There I agree.

[Aiculik]

Interesting topic.
Personally I don't like "labels" and "classic" is one of those I most despise. Because usually people use it to distinguish between books that are "worthy" to read and books that are not. In this group I also put the term "contemporary classic".

For me, "contemporary" works are not those that were written recently or in near past. For me they are books with which "contemporary" people can interract and relate to, that seem to understand their feelings, their doubts and worries in their time and place, in their "contemporary" world and written in a way still understandable and enjoyable. And probably I'm very demanding reader, because for me great majority of the "classics" or even "canon" books I read doesn't match these criteria. (Especially the second condition about being enjoyable. On the other hand, in my personal top 100 there are books that most "literary educted" people would consider "low literature". So maybe I'm not demanding after all, but just weird.

While "classic" for me is simply the book which was, and still is, widely read and acknowledged by many people, both "laics" and all kinds of theorists, critics, professors etc.. But, after five years of studying literature, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't care less about what other people think of books I like, or even myself.

So clearly, for me it is much more important if the book is "contemporary", if it still has something to tell me and if I can enjoy reading it, than if someone else (even the wisest of scholars) thinks that it is significant, intellectual, beautiful, influential, etc.

[Sevigne]

After some thought I realized exactly where my idea of the Classics came from.

My mother, a reader, took me to the library at least once a week for as long as I can remember anything. I was an inveterate browser and since I was reading on a tenth grade level by the time I was eight, I did not confine my curiosity to the childrens' room of the library.

Like most children I liked very little things and I was charmed by the Oxford World Classics editions that really were pocket sized and bound in blue. Back in the 'Fifties the series was still being published by the Clarendon Press and the books still had illustrated dust wrappers.My earliest memories of the library included Oxford editions of Barchester Towers, Pride and Prejudice and The Mayor of Casterbridge.

On the shelves I saw Boswell's London Jounral and Boswell in Holland. I saw Mistress to an Age, the biography of Madame de Stael and so many other books whose titles I loved and memorized.

As a child looks forward to growing up and getting a two-wheeler bike or a prom dress, I looked forward to the day when I would be old enough to read those books and find out what was attached to those fascinating titles.

I am still intrigued by the idea of a book I have been hearing about all my life. I am still a little hesitant to read those books since my idea of what the book is will disappear, after reading, into what the book really is.