Awritingreader’s Weblog

What is a Classic?

Tradition. A classic is a work seeped in the history and tradition of the world, either explicitly or subtly. It is time tested, enduring. To accomplish this endurance a classic must also be somehow universal or expansive, that it might impact many and retain its significance and power for one. A classic is culturally constructed and agreed upon by a society to serve the purposes of said society. At the same time however, a classic must hold some seed of intrinsic greatness. This invisible entity cannot be the only characteristic of a classic, but it somehow must be a part for this would be the only explanation for how it came to be so massly identified as such. A classic is popular and widely read, even if critically received. It is not infallible.

Perhaps not necessarily surprising, Ohmann’s definition doesn’t look entirely different from mine, although he might leave out any mention of an intrinsic value and stick to societal control in naming the canon. Essentially, he breaks a classic down into two basic criteria. A book is a classic if its sales made lots of money and if it receives critical attention (but only from the right people). His statement that “it doesn’t matter that Normal Podhoretz hates Updike’s novels, so long as he takes them seriously enough to argue with his peers about them” really intrigues me (1887).

I can easily think of many circumstances where I have read a book simply because the right “authority” told me I should, and I have likewise read books because the wrong “authority” told me I shouldn’t. I’m unsure however, if this influence is a matter of cultural status, one belonging to a higher and the other to a lower class, or if the only status influencing me is simply formed in my mind. Not necessarily economically higher or lower, but just higher or lower in my head…perhaps even without the money factor.

So, while I largely agree with Ohmann that class structures in a capitalist society dictate our canon, I also can’t help but consider that there might be class structures that we each individually form that may have nothing to do with money. It seems plausible that this could be more a mistake of a problematic labeling of others in general, than resting solely on an economic issue. I can’t deny that this aspect informs even my personal heirarchical structures, even indirectly. For example, I, as an educated middle class someone will probably take the opinion of another educated middle class someone simply based on innate similarities formed through that experience. But it at least seems possible that though this indirectly affects the issue, it is not the immediate controlling factor.