The word 'classic' is a term most debated upon when it comes to literature. What makes a book a classic and who decides whether this is so? The reception of the reader plays an important role in this. I think the term 'classic' and the books in the literary canon are questionable in terms of the people reading it.
Yes, there are certain factors which give a book that unwavering reputation throughout the years, such as Shakespeare's work. The beautiful poetic language, the challenge which the readers must put themselves through to be able to unlock the meaning hidden underneath the lines, the ability of his work to immerse you within the story; making you a part of it and a well thought-out plot, are just some of these factors.
Based on my own reading experiences, what I think makes good literature is a book which can make a simplistic plot turn into a series of adventuristic writing. You cannot put the book down in want of divulging more into that language that makes the little things into big things and that exciting mysterious air of what is going to happen next. A 'classic' is defined by people who have come before us, people who have prejudged a book already by their own standards. However, I think every generation and every different person have their own interpretation of what makes a book a classic. Any book can be a classic to someone's perspective. If it teaches you something new or reiterates what you already know, if it makes you think of the enormous beauty which could come from a few words and lines, it IS good literature and can be a classic, even if the literary canon does not tell you it is so.
The issue of films and other products of the media being 'literature' is also a a topic which is subject to great discussion. I think it is still an interpretation of literature in a different form (especially for people who prefer watching the images as opposed to just reading the words) but the fact that someone else is directing the film or controlling it the way they deem it to be makes the reader's reception less free to roam. You cannot be immersed in the story in the same way as you would if you were reading the book yourself and you are not able to take in the beauty of the language in as much depth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree! Anythin that draws you in and keeps you reading because you can't put the book down should definitely be classed as literature. Thats so true about the difference between films and books, you can't get the same emotional depth from watching something as you do from reading it. A classic book should be defined by each individual for themselves. :) x
ReplyDeleteI like the way you distinguish between film and literature. So you judge a text on its ability to make you feel immersed in it and that it teaches you something? This seems to be enough of a distinction to rule out some popular works i.e. they might be page-turners but you don't learn anything. But can any work be a classic?
ReplyDelete