The definition of a classic

(The first in what may turn out to be a number of columns)

“Definition of a classic: a book everyone is assumed to have read and often thinks they have.”
-- Alan Bennett

Having watched with delight (and occasional horror) at the debate over what constitutes a “classic” piece of literature on LibraryThing, I decided to do a little research myself to see what the Internet would furnish me with.

The usually reliable wikipedia gives a very bland definition as "literature and other art that is widely considered a model of its form”. Not much to help us there.The definition provided by thefreedictionary.com of "classic" is more edifying, where the idea of an “established model or standard” has appeal, as does it having “lasting significance or worth”.

Lombardi at About.com gives a modern (but authoritative?) definition, giving points for
1. expressing some artistic quality (life, truth and beauty)
2. stands the test of time
3. a certain universal appeal
4. makes connections (intertextuality – not stated, but I think this is what she means)

Number 1 seems a bit wishy-washy to me – probably because the expression of these qualities (and the qualities themselves in fact), are subjective.
Number 2 and 3 seem to crop up a lot in definitions, as top factors. I find this one particularly interesting because in my Internet crawling I found a great site called ExClassics – books that were once considered classics by people such as Charles Dickens and Charlotte Bronte, but have since ebbed away into obscurity.
Number 4 I find dubious. She states “You can study a classic and discover influences from other writers and other great works of literature.” Possibly, but I can’t abide it as a “criterion” for a classic work, it just seems far too general.

A more historical perspective on the whole shebang is found with an essay by Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, and I have to admit to liking his definition a whole lot better. He says two things which seem to me as particularly salient. First, that it is “A delicate question, to which somewhat diverse solutions might be given according to times and seasons.” And I’d have to agree. Our idea of a classic will do doubt vary wildly over space and time, country and age, social, political and economic influences.

He also says that “A classic, according to the usual definition, is an old author canonised by admiration, and an authority in his particular style.” This would fit in with Lombardi’s number 3 – of a certain universal appeal, but the idea that they are an authority in their particular style is a factor that hasn’t been opined much in recent debates, and that I rather like the sound of.

An idea that I have bandied about a bit in my head is that classics are simply whatever publishers say they are. And that can vary quite considerably. An Amazon.co.uk search finds fascinating results – search for “Penguin Popular Classics” and we turn up the likes of Jane Austen and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Try another on “Penguin Modern Classics”, and we find a great deal of Ian Fleming before getting to John Steinbeck and, surprise, F. Scott Fitzgerald again. Which I suppose just reinforces how difficult a category it is to define. “Virago Modern Classics” spawns a list of authors ranging from Daphne Du Maurier through to Jacqueline Susann. “Wordsworth Classics” generates a list that we might find more traditional – Dickens, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.

What is a classic? This is a debate is ongoing, and I will keep on the lookout for more ammunition in the fray. But I am getting a sense of satisfaction just from the idea that whatever it might be, no two people will agree on it.