What qualities must a book possess in order to be classified as a classic? Is it relevance for a long period of time? Is it the quality of the writing? Would you consider a book a classic if it is only 20 years old?

Such a fun question--I was just discussing it with my class on Wednesday about a book that was over 300 years old...one that even the academics don't consider a classic. So it seems that time alone isn't the answer.

To me, one possible answer is language. Anyone can write an 'important' book with big ideas, characters we can relate to and understand, and even a wonderful/memorable plot. There are so many very good books that people forget, and scholars--like myself--are constantly digging through the archive with our hands full of dead books going "what about this one? Why did we leave it behind?" However, what few readers can do is hit on all of the above with the best possible language. Great writing is lyrical, powerful, disturbing, concise (and sometimes verbose and concise) and full of metaphors, imagery, and connections that help us see the very things that we couldn't see without the author/book. That's probably why we love quotes so much (especially on sites like Book Likes): they help us translate an experience we all understand in a way that we feel we wrote ourselves, but could never express without the author/book. In the end, writing is not what is said, but how it is said. Shakespeare is eternal because of his language, not his plots (which he borrowed) or his characters (which he also largely borrowed): his words, speeches, puns, poetry, and songs seem to have always been with us, and express something almost mythic in our lived experience; without them, however, I wonder if any of us would have 'lived' these experiences.

When I read a book, language makes me smile the most, get upset the most, and share a book the most. Language is also why I write books; I want to write that one great sentence that says everything I truly feel in a way that makes me understand why I feel it. Then, maybe others will understand it, too. And some of these feelings are so complex that it takes an entire book, or an entire poem, to get to the bottom of it.

What book is over 300 years old, is still read and is not considered a classic? I considered To Kill a Mockingbird a classic long before it turned 50 years old. One reason is the impact that book and then the movie had on American history and the Civil Rights movement.

It depends how you define the idea of being "read." Many books are quite old and are still in print and read, but might not be classics by everyone's estimation. The book I was referring to was The Castle of Otranto, which many people think is pretty vapid; however, even if you don't like the book, it was important historically and contributed significantly to the birth of the Gothic novel. That said, there are many books still in print that are old, yet aren't considered 'great' books. Two favorite books of mine, Defoe's Captain Singleton and King of the Pirates, are quite old and by a great author--but I don't know anyone who considers these books classics or even some of his best (and they're not his best, but still quite good). I think classics are more properly books that hit a mythic nerve in our culture and we feel the need to tell and retell to ourselves--the stories we can't seem to exorcise from our cultural psyche. Some of these works, however, still inspire great debate about their literary worth--Tarzan, for example, or even Dracula. But you're right, a book can be a classic immediately--it's just easier to see a book's importance after all the people who first read it are dead!

A good place to start is a book that is 50 years or older that still has an impact today. I believe that The Castle of Ortanto is considered a classic because of its contribution to the Gothic novel. Does a book have to be well-written to be a classic? I think Moby Dick was poorly written and also needed a good editor. But I would have to consider it a classic.

I think it has something to do with its effect on the generation during the time period of the book, but mostly the generation that comes after. A lot of authors who wrote what we now considered "classics" lived to see little praise of their works.

I suppose it's not only about writing a great story, with great language, with a great message, but it has to be ahead of its time, and it has to give a new voice and thus a new way of thinking to the people.

Of course, on the more pessimistic side, classics are nothing but what those in power (usually influential professors, scholars, publishers, etc) decide to keep around. Oftentimes we read classics because they are considered classics. I disagree that the story has to still be relevant. The human condition is... as the name suggests, universal. Most stories can still be relevant as long as we make the effort to view it as relevant. Take for example, Freud. His ideas are pretty outdated, but he revolutionized the way we thought about psychology, dreams, and the human brain. Plato as well. We don't believe men and women should run around naked performing gymnastics for the good of the civilization, or his really, really strange notion on child rearing, or that one should dedicate their life to one pursuit only and not be allowed to do any others, etc, etc and the list goes on, but he is still considered classic and is still widely read today.

Though perhaps others might disagree.

Reply to post #9 (show post):
I think your point that the effect a book has on a generation has validity. One reason that I think To Kill a Mockingbird was considered a classic soon after publication was its affect on that generation (the 50's), as well as the generation growing up in the 60's.

I am not very good at direct definitions. But here is my take on it. I started reading American novels in a big way only after I came to America. An exceptions is Harper Lee's " To kill a mockingbird". My list is no means large, but of the few that I have read three of them would be classics in my view. Willa Cather's "Death comes to the Archbishop", Richard Russo's "Empire Falls" and Kent Haruf's "Plainsong". There are some more, but these just pop into my mind. I can relate to the humanity in them, and place myself in the situations described in the books, and behave in the same way or similar way. They are not confined by time or geography. The language and emotions in the book, move you and place you in Alabama, New Mexico, New York, Colorado wherever. You sympathize with the characters, get angry, exasperated, amused at/by them, but they remain affectionate friends long after you have closed the book.