/lit/ - Literature

I originally thought a classic was a book written during the classical period.

I was wrong.

>>1033682
its a classic because not only you like it, but many more people from various generations also like, i.e. the greek epics by homer and shakespeare. Modern classics like Ulysses and 1984 are classic in the sense that they will be important/enjoyed for generations to come.

This is just my interpretation.

time proves what is or is not a classic, IMO.

phrases such as "instant classic" are marketing ploys.

>>1033706
>>1033698

Just because it's popular over a long period of time does not make it a classic. If that's true of pre-modern literature, it's only because literature wasn't being published in a flood at the time it was made. You only think of it as a classic because you were told it was a classic. The same applies to anyone today.

There is no "'test of time." If there is, then you weren't the proctor, you were just told it had an "A grade." And that's why you personally consider it a classic. Otherwise, it's just something you like.

something being a classic is usually based on my own subjective opinions. I rarely show interest in the opinions of others.

A classic is not based on personal taste or opinions.

A classic does need to pass the test of time.

Which is why there are no universal sci-fi classics, only sci-fi fans see them as classics to their particular genre, I see them as childrens books.

inb4madscififanrage

>>1033788
it is based on opinions, whether its one person or a group of people.

>>1033796

>Sci-fi nerd detected

>>1033740

If it is old and not esoteric, it is a classic.
If it is esoteric then it is only a classic to those who enjoy it.

>>1033788
Ubik seems to be pretty highly praised in the literature world. Maybe not a classic, but it's a start.

>>1033740
I meant that the book would be timeless and generations consder it "Grade A" not because somebody told them, because it actually is of that quality. Yes peoples opinions matter, and you don't have to like a classic. But that doesn't mean that it's not a classic, and just because a lot of people liking a specific book make it a classic. Re-readability, quality of the work, and the fact that the work is held in such high regards throughout it's existence.

>>1033740
I meant that the book would be timeless and generations consder it "Grade A" not because somebody told them, because it actually is of that quality. Yes peoples opinions matter, and you don't have to like a classic. But that doesn't mean that it's not a classic, and just because a lot of people liking a specific book does not make it a classic. Re-readability, quality of the work, and the fact that the work is held in such high regards throughout it's existence. Agreeing with the instant classic point.

tl,dr: It has to be considered good, repeatably, over multiple generations.

>>1033788
thats because sci-fi books have held to the test of time, as of yet.

It has sold a lot (consistently) since it gained fame. Also, irrelevant opinion thread about nothing. derp

>>1033876

>>1033740

>it's only because literature wasn't being published in a flood at the time it was made

actually, there was a ton of shit being published at the time. There's a reason you've only heard of some and not most: some passed the test of time!

>>1033922

>>1033740
You just went full retard. If you knew ANYTHING about pre modern literature you would know people wrote PLENTY, and only the really good bits have survived. you should try actually reading a classic like the Iliad, and then you would know.

A book is a classic when it has an huge clout in the history of litteracy. When it matter not only for its reader, but also for writers.

Indeed, there are "instant classic", in a same way that there are "instant historic even", like 9/11.