The word “classic” is used to describe works of literature ranging from short poems to thousand-page novels. It is used without much thought as to its true meaning. One could state that a book such as A Tale of Two Cities is a classic and hardly anyone would disagree: of course A Tale of Two Cities is a classic; it is, after all, A Tale of Two Cities. However, it does not make logical sense to assume something has a title simply because it was preordained to have it. There must be some kind of criteria by which things are measured, and, if the thing being measured satisfies certain requirements of a title, it is given that title. It is my goal in the following essay to explain what criteria are used in order to deem a work of literature as being a classic.
Before discussing what I feel are the elements which constitute a classic, I think it is necessary for me to illustrate an argument concerning the apparent "intellectual hierarchy" present in society. It seems that a certain group of individuals are elected by members of society to be the judges of what is good literature, music, art, etc. I could exemplify this phenomenon by referring to paintings. The Mona Lisa is recognized as one of the most famous and beautiful paintings in the world, but not every single person agrees. I personally think that the Mona Lisa is a mediocre painting and nothing to make a fuss over. Since the decision of what is of good taste is not a completely unanimous one, I believe that there must be a group of individuals, fairly representative of society, who determine what should be thought to be good. As stated in the introduction, I feel there are definitely certain criteria used in the decision of what is classic, which I will discuss next.
One of the first characteristics one would observe while considering a piece of classic literature is the age of the work. Classics younger than about fifty years are rare. Time seems to be a very important factor in the naming of classics; Moby Dick, a novel now considered one of the quintessential adventure classics of the English language, was thought to be a terrible book at the time of its release in 1851. It would seem that time has altered the book somehow, that books, like fine wine, get better with age, right? No. That's just stupid. There are millions of books that were written longer than fifty years ago that have not merited the title of classic. There must be other qualifications for a classic.
Innovativeness is also present in every work of literature deemed classic. The work always contains something different, some new concept or theme, something that really stands out, something that the author did just a little bit better than everyone else. The work of people understood to be pioneers of their genre is almost always considered classic: The music of The Beatles, for example, is thought to be classic in terms of rock 'n' roll because of how different from everything else their music sounded at the time. J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy is a classic of the modern fantasy genre because of the elaborate fictitious worlds and history that he created in writing his work. Positive outliers are very integral in the making of a classic. At this point, the reader could gather that a classic is a piece of literature that is old and innovative, but that would not be complete; a book could be written a hundred years ago in a style that had not been tried before and still not be a classic. There is still yet one more element to consider.
Certain themes are always prevalent in a classic. These themes are references to feelings and situations everyone can relate to: love, happiness, jealousy, fear, the unknown, etc. However, anything that could constitute a story has at least one of these elements; with no struggle there is no plot line and in effect, no story. It becomes an incomplete thought. These themes that all humans can relate to must be paired with the other criteria in a classic, which to reiterate are time and innovativeness. With this last argument stated, my recipe for a classic is this:
1. Standing the test of time. Continuing to inspire throughout generations.
2. Innovativeness. The work contains something that's not quite like anything else.
3. Central themes, used in combination with the above.
Let's take a look at whether or not I can use these ingredients to cook something that is a classic. I will try this out with the book Dracula by Bram Stoker.
Is this book old? Yes, it is quite old. It was published in 1897.
Is this book somehow innovative? It sure is. It has been used, in parts, as the basis for the modern horror genre.
Does this book contain the central themes of love, fear, etc? Indeed it does. I’ll spare the reader a comprehensive synopsis of the plot, but illustrate that there are many different conflicts within the book: Dracula’s love for Lucy, Jonathan Harker’s epic battle with Dracula, and the eventual triumph of good over evil. This, combined with the other two criteria, protect Dracula’s title as a classic.
I think that classics are necessary in society. I believe that they preserve culture and serve as monuments to bygone eras and allow us to explore our emotions, and think differently. They are intellectual triumphs. They are hardy and do not let time rob them of any significance. They are representative of the diversity of human thought. And, unless emotion is to become obsolete, they will always be classics.