By: Katelyn Tijerina
Everyone knows what a classic is. Or rather everyone knows examples of classics. Any person off the street could name a classic like Jane Eyre or Emma, but what is a classic and why does society put so much emphasis on reading them? Italo Calvino sought to answer these questions in his essay “Why Read the Classics.” Calvino was a popular Italian writer from the 60s. At the time of his death he was the most translated contemporary writer.
In his essay, Calvino defines classics as “those books that are treasured by those who have read and loved them. (p.1)” While I believe that this idea is part of the picture, it’s not the whole picture. There are many books that have been read repeatedly and are widely loved by the public that are not considered classics. John Green has written multiple books that have the makings of a “classic.” Books like The Fault in Our Stars and Looking for Alaska have been truly “treasured” by their readers. These novels include heartbreaking stories with wonderful characters. They have been adored to the point of television shows and movies and they include lines like “…we’re all doomed and that there will come a day when all our labor has been returned to dust, and I know the sun will swallow the only earth we’ll ever have, and I am in love with you.” However, these are not defined as classics, so what is the definition of a classic? Penguin Books is a publishing company known for their classics. In their article “100 must-read classics chosen by our readers”, a consistent theme among these books; none of them were published after the year 2000. This makes sense that to classify as a classic there is a necessity for seniority. This notably rules out both John Green books published in 2012 and 2005 respectively.
However, there are plenty of books written before the year 2000 that are not considered classics. Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Prachett was published before 2000 and is widely popular, even with its own hit TV show. So, why does Good Omens not make the cut? The true definition of a classic, the ones we refer to and think about often, To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Leaves of Grass, they all have one thing in common: they are taught in academia.
In the same vein there are plenty of classics that are unenjoyable. Candide by Voltaire includes horrific scenes of murder, rape, slavery, and cannibalism. In Candide, a slave talks of his life
“When [the salves] work in the sugar-mills and get a finger caught in the machinery, they cut off the hand; but if we try to run away, they cut off a leg: I have found myself in both situations. It is the price we pay for the sugar you eat in Europe.”
The questions about whether Candide is good or not and whether it is enjoyable or not are separate questions from each other.
The difference between a good old book and a classic is society’s endorsement of it in school. This is how specific pieces of literature are widely known. In America, children are required to attend school and the majority of children attend public schools. Call of the Wild has been read by millions of people, but not necessarily because it’s good, but because school has subjected unwilling teenagers to it for decades. How these books got to be taught is another question. Are they classics because they are taught in schools or are they taught in schools because they’re classics?
Calvino argues that “The classics are books that exert a peculiar influence(p.2),” I agree with this but not exclusively. In a good classic, which is not all classics, and a good book, which may not be classics, this holds true. A good book, of any genre devoid of definition, is one that is not over when the book is closed. Similarly another point he makes is “A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say.” Again I agree with this statement but It’s not exclusive to classics. I would substitute the word “classic” for “good”. The beauty of reading is its effect on one’s life. The so-called “reading hangover” is what marks a good book. A good book is characterized by the lasting impression it leaves on the reader.
Sor Juana made enough of an impact in literature to still be read today. Nevertheless, not every individual who reads her poetry will be left with an impression. Furthermore, her words are defined by the interpretation of the reader which is simply dependent on their perspective. “Oh how, in your beautiful sun/ my ardent love set ablaze, enflamed and fed by your brilliance, it forgot about the dangers,” (lines 29-32, Redondilla 91). These lines may elicit a strong response in one reader but not in another. One reader may interpret this as deeply romantic, the narrator being consumed with love for another. Another reader may interpret this as unhealthy, the narrator is ignoring precautions which could lead to poor decision making.
What makes a good classic is what we learn about it, not reiterating our current thoughts like Calvino seems to suggest “A classic does not necessarily teach us anything we did not know before… that this author said it first, or at least is associated with it in a special way.” I disagree with the first part of this but agree with the second part. One of the goals of reading, especially classic literature, is to learn. Literature exists to share ideas and knowledge. By reading you are expanding your perspective and personal knowledge. The use of reading is not in reading a novel you already agree with, that defeats the entire purpose of reading. What I do agree with is, there is a certain beauty in another person conveying an idea in beautiful prose that you feel deeply connected with that you also previously thought nobody else in the world felt.
“…but we do not read the classics out of duty or respect, but only out of love. Except at school.” I believe many people read classics because of the positive stigma around them. There is a certain class inference in being well-educated. This is the underlying reason why people are drawn to these classics. People in today’s day and age most often read classics to say they have read them rather than to enjoy them. While the classic texts are widely available the ability to comprehend them is not. To read a classic one must be educated enough to understand and patient enough to finish it. To others those that read classics are expressing “yes I too am educated. I am knowledgeable and therefore worthy of your respect.” Apart from that, the most common reason is school.
Most people motivated enough could get their hands on a copy of Notes From the Underground by Fydor Dostevesky. However, such a dense reading with lines such as;
“If instead of a palace there is a chicken coop, and it starts to rain, I will perhaps get into the chicken coop to avoid a wetting, but all the same I will not take the chicken coop for a palace out of gratitude for it’s having kept me from the rain,” (p.35)
Means it takes a certain amount of knowledge and education to read through and understand the work.
In the end, classics are only as significant as people let them be. The thing to be aware of is that literature in its finest form is not defined by the genre, writer, accessibility, or popularity. Literature on all grounds is equal and is equal on all grounds, meaning that literature in all forms is necessary and valuable, from the writings of Dr.Seuss himself to Edgar Allen Poe. The importance lies therein the fact that one is reading. That is enough and that is all there should be- a reader and a text.
Works Cited
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics . 1986.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Notes from the Underground. 1864. Atlanta, Ga, Peachtree Press, 2017.
Green, John. The Fault in Our Stars. New York, Dutton Books, 10 Jan. 2012.
Inés, Juana, and Edith Grossman. Sor Juana Inés de La Cruz : Selected Works. New York, W.W. Norton And Company, 2015.
Voltaire, Francois-Marie Arouet. Candide. 1759. Gardners Books.
