Enjoying the Classics, pt. 2

(Be sure to start with pt. 1 before treading into this post.)


...but, subjectivity aside, there must be a reason that classics are...well, "classic," right?

Sure, we all have different tastes. There are plenty of people who sincerely love the Beatles and 1984. Even above this, though, there must be something that qualifies a book (or a song, a movie, etc.) to be considered "classic."

To make it perhaps a bit overly simple, I suppose we can break it down in three ways, only the first of which I've discussed so far:

We can rate a book based on how much we enjoy it,
how well-crafted it is,
and how important it is.

No, I'm not enjoying 1984 so far. But is it well-written? Is it culturally significant?

The answer to these two questions are "yes" and "very much yes." And sometimes that's enough to rise a piece of art into the zone of "classic."

Not every book is merely meant to be enjoyed, is it? Some are written because the author has some sort of idea or message to impart, and believes that a novel is the best medium for conveying it. Perhaps the author wishes to explain, highlight, or even oppose some sort of zeitgeist in his/her world. There is no doubt that fiction has always been used as a means to this end - surely it always will be (barring some sort of Fahrenheit-451 scenario from happening, God forbid).

Of the three ways of judging a book, I put them in that order for a reason: specifically, I was thinking of them from most subjective to least subjective.

Whether or not a book is enjoyable is 100%, through and through a matter of opinion. What I enjoy might come off as downright garbage to you, and vice versa. After all, I can't stand the Beatles, and I'd bet you probably enjoy them. (Personally, I've never met anyone who doesn't like them; I suspect I may be the only one.)

Whether or not a book is well-crafted is still partly subjective, though I would argue there are at least a handful of measures we can discuss a bit more objectively. (Is the author's word choice appropriate for the subject matter, without being too limited or too wild? Is there variation in the sentence length and structure? Is the setting fully established? Are the characters internally consistent? etc.)

Whether or not a book is important is really not very debatable. This question is something that can be quantified with reasonable objectivity. How have people responded to it? What sort of impact has it had on the culture into which it was introduced? Does it have a timely message?

In fact, of each of these three judgments, we realize that whether or not a book is enjoyable is actually the least determinant factor regarding whether a book is considered a classic.

It's for the best this way. If classics were just based on what's popular and sells well - and on what people merely enjoy, regardless of literary merit or significance - then we run the risk of Fifty Shades of Grey being considered a classic in another 50 years. And that's just not a world any of us would want to live in.


What do you think of all of this, friends? Are there any classics which you don't enjoy, but which you appreciate for their value? Let's hear about them!