What even is a classic and why you're wrong about it [CC] 

Such a good video about subjectivity and art! I was thinking about this today, because Tristan and the Classics just put out a video that's like "20 most popular classics"...according to Book Depository. And of course, even if you try to use a more objective standard like "popularity" or what sells well, what you end up with is the top end of the list dominated by titles that most English speakers are required to read in school, like The Great Gatsby, which just brings us back to teachers and academics determining a "canon". Anyway, thanks for this discussion!

We are clearly on all the same wavelengths 😅

Great discussion, Claudia! I jumped down this rabbit hole because I looked up how old a book had to be to become a classic and couldn't find an answer - in fact, just like you, I saw that there was no consensus on what a classic even is! Which is crazy. You brought up some very intriguing questions. Most griping to me being who determines what a classic is and what books stay classics (and which books lose their status 💔 I'd definitely love to hear more about these tossed aside novels, but I imagine there's a mountain of information to sort through). While I don't agree with your conclusion that a classic should just mean an old book, I understand how you got there. Thanks for the video!

Very interesting! I came over from Katie's video which was also very interesting. I put the cutoff at 1950 and say it is any book that is still being read and enjoyed today.

"Any book that was written before 1965“ sounds good to me! That is the year I was born. 🤭

I consider a classic a book that stands the test of time. 😊 Excellent video, as usual!

I was so happy to see the title of this video - I just knew you'd have some intelligent things to say. I've been very disappointed by the attempts to define classic books I've stumbled across on RU-vid or the press up until now. I completely agree with what you said here. I'd only add that I think the diversity of styles and genres of classics makes them impossible to lump together, except as old books someone somewhere still reads. And that's hardly helpful.

Love this! It's why I'm trying to read more classic novels that I don't hear recommended regularly. This really resonates for me.

This is the best booktube video I've watched in ages. I feel like I'm on booktube premium 😊 well done! I like the concept of a classic as a book that is always relevant, but that's so subjective. 1960 it is!

Fascinating discussion. We all have our own idea of what books are classics, some of which coincides with publishers.

Great video! Thank you for The Last Man reference. I want to read it and I want to read it NOW! A wink to a classic children's book: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Thanks again!

What a coincidence, the first Finnish edition of The Last Man was published in 2022. I read it then, and only now learned how recently it has gained popularity. Also my pet peeve is how books originally written in English are so dominating even all kinds of "world classics" lists, series etc. I understand the practical & historical reasons behind it, but it's still annoying 😅

I studied Japanese Literature in Japan and they use classics for any work before 1868, so is a historical classification that has nothing to do with quality. And since I now teach Japanese Classical Literature I tend to use a similar approach to the Western one. So, for me, if it is from the nineteenth century or before is a classic. I guess the problem is that the word 'classic' is used as an adjective meaning something valuable, people say 'It is a classic!'. Anyway, I prefer to use it as a time distinction and not as a quality adjective. Love your videos!

(Melanie here) Great video :)

Hi Claudia.classy video on classics. I’ve recently read some wonderful books that had been out of print and have been republished. Some of them were really wonderful and as long as there are people who bring books back from obscurity, we will keep depending on the same lists. Aloha.

Bravo, Claudia! Fascinating and very amusing essay. And thank you for reprimanding McCrum (appropriate name!)

Thank you, that was a very interesting chat about classics, I knew some of it but you expanded my knowledge.

This is such a well presented discussion, Claudia. I appreciate the research you did as well as the time you invested in preparing and organizing this information. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I really enjoyed the way you unpick this topic. Human beings love to find ways to classify things, find groups or patterns. When this tendency is applied to books it throws up lots of problems but can also be useful. How do we pick what to read from centuries of past writing? Virago's mission to restore books by women sidelined by male academics and publishers used the term classic to good effect. And they didn't just pick random old books by women. They looked for things that they felt had ideas or qualities that would still speak to new readers. As ever I suppose the answer is, it's complicated.

This is fun and fascinating to watch at the same time. To me a "classic" is just a book written and/or published before 1914, taking WWI as the event that trully ended the XIX Century. Everything published after that and until the 1980's I consider it as a "modern classic" but that could be more subjective as I was born in the '80s and as Katie said in her video about this topic (great timing, BTW, two of my favourite youtubers posting videos about the same theme at the same time! 😃), one tend to base categories about time on one's birth time. I believe categories based on "passing the test of time" etc *are* problematic as demand a complete knowledge of how influential a work of art was and who can say they know the whole spectrum of art? Also, when sales rates and reprinting criteria enter the equation, we're really in slippery grounds as you demonstrated in your video.

In the film _Chinatown_ Noah Cross offered a definition of "respectable" that also works for the notion of "Literary Classic": "Politicians, public buildings, and whores (and works of literature) all get respectable if they last long enough." So, yeah, Mary Shelly's _The Last Man_ is a classic, right? It lasted.

Well I looked up the pelvis word and it meant dusty.....so that means full of it. I don't much like dusty books as they might give me an asthma attack. I know what I like and the books I tend to reread yearly are my idea of a classic, like Jane Austin, sometimes Brontes, LOtRs books and some Science Fiction and Fantasy books. Interesting video by the way.

Hear hear! I fully agree!

I have the audacious view that the work stands on it's own merit irrespective of who wrote it or who thinks it worthwhile.I'll read books on the list more out of curiosity than "before I die" must reads. It helps to see what works have inspired and impacted others. However, my background isn't literature. In other fields, the classics are the works that have defined the field.For example Plato's Republic.It's not necessary to read it in order to understand philosophy but it helps. I think there are books that are worthwhile to read. The ones that keep popping up might be worth looking into. I'm not a fan of Dickens but I think there is a lot to be gained by reading some of his work.Ultimately it's all subjective and continually evolving.While it's difficult to define what a classic is and what books count, it's still helpful to try.

In the 60s many people were petrified of The Bomb and doomsday anxiety so this would be a cautionary tale well worth printing....perhaps to save humanity from itself.

This was such an amazing discussion and I love your definition of "60+ years old". It will include books from authors around the world intrinsically, rather than just well off white men!

Antique is another word. A lot of people use it to mean dated or to refer to anything resembling a style from the Pre war Era and backwards. I have an old Murphy Radio that I inherited from my grandparents. Many people call it an antique when actually its only around 69 years old.

A classic, for me, is a book that is read decades, centuries after it was written. For me, it’s that simple.

Classic= old but still enjoyed by readers. I don't really have a cut-off year for it. I mentioned Goodnight Mr Tom as a children's classic earlier last year and I stand by that, but it was only published in 1980. I think the meritocratic definition of 'classic' needs to be abandoned. Along with meritocracy generally! It can get in the bin! 🚮

I think classics are made by the experience we collectively have with them. A classic is often something old enough to no longer be engaging to most modern readers. The writing in them is probably praised by critics, but a turn-off to the average reader. They're often prestigious if they're written by a white person, despite needing disclaimers about being written with the stereotypes of their day. They're a chore to check off a read-before-you-die list. They're often assigned and hated in schools. I've heard it said that they're books that people want to have read, but don't want to read. Now, I think there are certain exceptions to this. Jane Austen is actually beloved, for instance. But, given the choice between some random classic and something else, most people would probably choose something else.

I hate to contradict or seek to correct the video on what is a Nit-picky point BUT Oliver Goldsmith was IRISH, so the list of Oxford Classics is 8 English, 1 American and 1 Irish author....

I think disagree somewhat. Your point about The Last Man is really excellent. It is obviously random to an extent which works get taken up by a critic. Huckleberry Finn was massively boosted 50 years after publication by Ernest Hemingway for example. With Mary Shelley, a large part of the cultural resonance Frankenstein has is because of the 1931 movie. However, I don't think that means it is totally arbitrary. Lots of works now considered classics were not well regarded for a long time. Shakespeare and Moby Dick come to mind. So it's not just critics who are shaping these things. I think it's more democratic than you state. You yourself said Frankenstein was groundbreaking. It's not for no reason that people over the years have treasured these works while other books have fallen by the wayside. Classics for me are works that have persisted because they speak to lots of people and that tells me something about their quality, while yes, for *reasons* (sexism, colonialism) other gems have been left out and we need to go out of our way to rediscover them.

You're not German, Claudia (of German genetics, or so I understand), but your obsession with definitions and meaning strikes me as very German. Must reflect your education and the culture you absorbed as a child. I like the way you think, BTW. I am part German and have always been obsessed by classification schemes. This was very good and well thought out. Thanks. I never would have questioned Frankenstein being a classic, although I've never read it. I didn't even know "The Last Man" existed, and no, it's NOT a classic. A classic, by definition, has to have acquired a certain amount of market recognition. Perhaps Mary can hope for a second or third act? But market alone (take 50 Shades of Something, for example), which translates to popularity, does not necessarily equal merit. Sounds like I need to brush up on the other Shelley. Did you know that Katie (Books and Things) put out a video on the same topic about the same time? Curious.

I think you’re cute. And so well read!

I'm a white male from a Western European country, albeit one with a unique history, but I feel that "Classic Literature" and its gatekeepers have robbed us of the opportunity to explore Worlds beyond our own narrow boundaries. One element you didn't mention in this video, though one close to my own heart, is the reality that the vast majority of the gatekeepers/"list makers" are from cultures which are/were Imperialist and maintain(ed) their Imperialist mindset by denigrating anything (except Treasures - aka "Loot") that was not European (especially English) in origin. Thus, to this day, ancient Indian texts are regularly excluded from "Classic" book discussions. Likewise, ancient Chinese and Japanese literature rarely gets included in Literature discussions. This is a huge oversight. Indians, Chinese and Japanese had flourishing civilisations while the ancestors of modern Europeans were still rubbing sticks together to start fires. And we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, if we believe that "Classic" should include a cut-off of 1960 (or 65). For reasons to do with the Imperialism mentioned above, Africans, Asians and general People of Colour, really only managed to start getting published in the late 1960s and after (Name, if you can, an African piece of Literature, written by an African (and not some Eurocentric Imperialist like Joy Davidson or Karen Blixen) and published prior to 1970?). The worst thing about the definitions read out towards the start of the video was their assumption that privileged White people (male or female), living in their wealthy, white, slave-owning, Imperialist bubbles, can possibly talk about the "Universal", when they were mostly unaware of what was going on in the lives of the people living all around them, that they don't even see. When, for example, does Jane Austen even NAME a single person that has to WORK for a living? Charles Dickens visited my own country in 1848 at the height of The Great Famine, yet never refers to it ANYWHERE in his writings. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the New Testament, but regularly in his (supposed) writings, Paul refers to "the Scriptures". While Christians for well over a Thousand years believe that Paul's writings are "Scriptures", he certainly did not. Similarly with literature. A "Classic" is very much in the eye of the beholder, always understanding that there is no one who doesn't have prejudices, exhibit biases and want their biases and prejudices confirmed by whatever media they consume. A real "Classic", in my opinion, is therefore a piece of art that challenges the biases of the consumer - but who would want to read only what makes us feel uncomfortable?

Retro books.

🏫👨🏼‍🏫📔😖

The word 'classic' is often wrongly attributed to stuff from a while ago that has been quite popular or something that seemed to be a bonding- point for a certain generation. Many people would refer to the film Shawshank Redemption as a classic simply because a lot of people born in the 80s and 90s 'loved' it. It can be argued that its a massively overrated film. The same goes for Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. A 'cult classic '. But does it have enough literary or artistic value to be given that status ? I'm afraid it doesn't.