-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
when a book goes mainstream
- Thread starter jenn
- Start date
Stewart
Active Member
jenngorham said:
No, pretentions rise.
No, but hype adds to an imagined value that is then, mentally, detracted through disappointment.
When the author is dead and we're still reading them 100 years later. That's why there's classics and, the newly coined term, modern classic
No, but hype adds to an imagined value that is then, mentally, detracted through disappointment.
i agree. if you can avoid the hype and build up, and judge something by your own standards and expectations, often you enjoy the book more than you would had you listened to all publicity.
i agree. if you can avoid the hype and build up, and judge something by your own standards and expectations, often you enjoy the book more than you would had you listened to all publicity.
novella
Active Member
jenngorham said:
A classic is a work of enduring excellence.
As such, wouldn't a classic, on publication, often be well received by critics, perhaps win awards, and go on to be read by "the masses"?
How would this impinge upon its literary caliber? In fact, isn't literary caliber better established in the public mind through these processes? A classic cannot become a classic unless it continues to be published, and a book that is not well received and read by people will not be backlisted by any publisher.
Does a work that is never read and only briefly in print stand a chance of earning a reputation for literary caliber?
It seems to me that you are begging the question here, i.e., assuming the existence of something that you are questioning the existence of.
novella said:
I agree with everything you said about classics. I wonder though who sets the time limit? Does it take 25 years, 50, 100 for a book to become a classic? How many reprints does it take? Does the author have to be dead? I guess I am nitpicking. LOL
But the above statement, I'm at a loss. All I can say is I was sort of looking to have a discussion about commercial vs critical works similar to the one on direstraits' thread.
http://forums.thebookforum.com/showthread.php?t=4364
novella
Active Member
jenngorham said:
IMO, when a work with literary merit has critical success, it's a win/win situation, good for the author, good for readers.
I also think the list of accepted "classics" is always in flux. Some things that were considered classics 50 years ago have gone out, probably never to be read much anymore. (Thackeray, Somerset Maugham, Henry James are far less read than they used to be.) Other novels considered classics at one point, IMO, just won't last (Updike, Philip Roth, Ayn Rand). They just really aren't good enough, though they were popular for a while.
I'm always overwhelmed at the public library by how many mediocre novels are taking up shelf space, many probably thought to be worthy literature at some point.
also wondering why Henry James' The portrait of a Lady did not last long like the book of mice and man? (was it because it was not widely known or was it because there was not much worth in itself?) why those critics' judgement on a certain book can make a book popular and classic?
Were works of Magaruite Duras considered as classic??
also, there seem to be categories like world's classics, nation's classics, etc...
Were works of Magaruite Duras considered as classic??
also, there seem to be categories like world's classics, nation's classics, etc...
Drizzt Do'Urden
New Member
I find myself agreeing with Stewart, and am wondering what idiot came up with "Modern Classic". Kind of ridiculous, in all likely hood the book will die down in a few years time.
i've never read any henry james. sadly my list of classics is limited to what was forced on me in high school and then later in first year english in university. i have read steinbeck's of mice and men, east of eden and grapes of wrath. but he only died in 68, so are his books classics? american classics? i think i am too fixated on time.
i feel that critical and commercial success is great for everyone as well, but it is odd how some react to it. anne marie macdonald wrote a fabulous book, fall on your knees, and when it got chosen for the oprah book club many people sort of laughed at that success. at least here at home. but it brought some much needed attention to canadian authors and introduced a great new writer to the world.
as to the library......mind numbingly frustrating wading through all those books. truly. i wonder there aren't more stories of librarians going postal.
i feel that critical and commercial success is great for everyone as well, but it is odd how some react to it. anne marie macdonald wrote a fabulous book, fall on your knees, and when it got chosen for the oprah book club many people sort of laughed at that success. at least here at home. but it brought some much needed attention to canadian authors and introduced a great new writer to the world.
as to the library......mind numbingly frustrating wading through all those books. truly. i wonder there aren't more stories of librarians going postal.
Jenem
kickbox
my personal feeling on what makes a classic book is when the book can withstand the test of time. specifically, generations. if the message of a book can still be enjoyed, understood and remain popular throughout further generations (especially generations whose lifestyles and experiences differ from those in the book) then i would say it is a classic.
i think the term modern classic was coined for books like steinbeck's etc. books written in times we consider modern, but books that are old enough to be regarded as classic or a future classic. because the story has been popular for 30 or so years, maybe it's felt it could or will be popular for another 30. it sounds arrogant, but what other term are you going to use to describe those kinds of books?
but i also dont think you can be very literal about terms like these.
i don't think a book being deemed a classic has everything to do with the worth or quality of the story - much has to do with hype and popularity. The Count of Monte Cristo comes to mind, right off the bat. When that book came out, it was wildly successful because of the story - a poor man fighting the rich and coming into riches and success himself. A novel idea in those times. But the story itself relies heavily on coincidence, and the number of characters in the story is excessive. I think we all regard the book as a classic, though.
as for books losing literary value with popularity- i agree with stewart on that one.
i think the term modern classic was coined for books like steinbeck's etc. books written in times we consider modern, but books that are old enough to be regarded as classic or a future classic. because the story has been popular for 30 or so years, maybe it's felt it could or will be popular for another 30. it sounds arrogant, but what other term are you going to use to describe those kinds of books?
but i also dont think you can be very literal about terms like these.
i don't think a book being deemed a classic has everything to do with the worth or quality of the story - much has to do with hype and popularity. The Count of Monte Cristo comes to mind, right off the bat. When that book came out, it was wildly successful because of the story - a poor man fighting the rich and coming into riches and success himself. A novel idea in those times. But the story itself relies heavily on coincidence, and the number of characters in the story is excessive. I think we all regard the book as a classic, though.
as for books losing literary value with popularity- i agree with stewart on that one.
bobbyburns
New Member
there's nothing wrong with a little popularity now and then. anyway, I've been photographed more than jesus christ.