75 years of Penguin Classics | What makes a Classic?

Eliot Rosewater

2010 marks the 75th anniversary of Penguin Classics. The imprint started when E.V. Rieu translated Homers Odyssey into a form easy to digest for the lay reader. He subsequently became general editor. There's now well over a thousand books published in the series. As part of anniversary Waterstones (at least in Cork) are doing a 3 for 2 offer on many of the books, including some published as Modern Classics.

Which leaves the question: what makes a Classic? When someone says they primarily read "classic fiction", what does that actually mean?


There are obviously different qualities which enable a book to be labeled so. In general thematic or philosophical books, where the plot is merely a way to express an idea or purpose, are considered. A book that is well written qualifies also, such as Hemingway's works. Books that have had a profound effect on culture, politically (ex. 1984) or literary (Joyce). First books in their genre, say Dracula.

So maybe its futile to seek a "one-size-fits-all" definition, but as someone who does claim to read "classic fiction" Im highly interested in what I actually mean!

What are the Boardsies' takes?

Denerick

To me classic fiction has to be old and somewhat groundbreaking. For example Walter Scott wrote classics (From our perspective of course) and as a result all of his successive books (Good or bad) are considered classics because they are from a classic author. Orwell is undoubtedly a writer of great class, but is he a classic writer? I don't know. If F.Scott Fitzgerald and the like can be considered as classic writers I'm pretty sure we can consider people writing in the 40s and 50s as authors of classics....

lemon_sherbert

Hmm, it's an interesting question, I'd agree with Denerick, it has to be somewhat groundbreaking, either novelty of approach or mastery of style. More than that though, I think it has to have an enduring quality, either capturing the essence of a time/culture, something like The Great Gatsby comes to mind, or it represents some aspect of the human existence that survives, and will always be relevant to future generations, so Wuthering Heights, or Huckleberry Finn.

Eliot Rosewater

I agree with the sentiments. So does a classic book have to be in some way unique?

Whether one judges an author or a book is a difficult. Referring to George Orwell, I found all of his pre-1939 novels to be average at most. It was only after the Spanish Civil War that he took the overtly political turn that was to later define him. I think that it does take a stroke of genius to create a book like 1984, so I would term him classic despite his weaker efforts.

But authors are hard to pin down. Do we judge them on the basis of their best, or on the average of their whole work?


I suppose its easier to define older classic books because the very fact they have survived is a hint of some greatness with. I don't know if this "natural selection" mode of filtration will continue in our modern era of information overload.

Amazotheamazing

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I agree with the sentiments. So does a classic book have to be in some way unique?

Whether one judges an author or a book is a difficult. Referring to George Orwell, I found all of his pre-1939 novels to be average at most. It was only after the Spanish Civil War that he took the overtly political turn that was to later define him. I think that it does take a stroke of genius to create a book like 1984, so I would term him classic despite his weaker efforts.

Orwell said as much in one of his esaays, until his political conscience gave him an ege, he felt his writing was lifeless.

What makes a classic is a harder thing to define, a lot of the books on the lists I wouldn't even read the full length of their back cover.