What Are Classics Anyway? | What Makes a Classic a Classic?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лют 2024
- In which I ask the question: what are classics, and do I like them . . . ?
The What Makes a Classic a Classic Tag was created by Mark from @BookTimewithElvis: • What Makes a Classic a...
It was based on a blog from Pac Macmillan: www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/cl...
I was tagged by Ros @scallydandlingaboutthebook2711: • What makes a classic a...
Publishers Mentioned
Pan Macmillan: www.panmacmillan.com
Persephone Books: persephonebooks.co.uk
Hono Press: www.honno.co.uk/classics
Project Gutenberg: www.gutenberg.org
Hard Press Classics: hardpress.net
Tramp Press: tramppress.com
Penguin Classics: www.penguin.co.uk/penguin-cla...
Books Mentioned
An Eye for an Eye, Anthony Trollope: / an-eye-for-an-eye
The Beth Book, Sarah Grand: / 1019669.the_beth_book
A Struggle for Fame, Charlotte Riddell: / a-struggle-for-fame
Gloriana, or the Revolution of 1900, Lady Florence Dixie: / gloriana
Ralph the Heir, Anthony Trollope: / 517088.ralph_the_heir
The Mystery of Mrs Blencarrow, Margaret Oliphant: / 9579700
Reuben Sachs, Amy Levy: / 1031943.reuben_sachs
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Winifred Watson: / 916856.miss_pettigrew_...
Jill, Amy Dillwyn: / 19300751
The Half Sisters, Geraldine Jewsbury: / 1458574
The Ordeal of Richard Feverel, George Meredith: / 20708.the_ordeal_of_ri...
The Way We Live Now, Anthony Trollope: / 1171458.the_way_we_liv...
Great Expectations, Charles Dickens: / 2623.great_expectations
Ways to Support My Channel
If you want to support me and my channel, to help me keep making regular content, there are a few different things you can do:
1. Watch my videos! Any views of my videos (especially if you don’t skip the ads) support me with ad revenue.
2. Give me a tip with SuperThanks - see the button to the right beneath the video.
3. Buy my novel, The Secrets of Hartwood Hall, or take it out from the library - links below.
4. Buy something with one of my affiliate links. I am an affiliate for two different companies:
-Bookshop.org - a wonderful website supporting UK independent bookshops. Anything you buy after navigating through my affiliate link helps support me: uk.bookshop.org/shop/katiejlu...
-Bruu Tea - a fantastic tea company. Anything you buy after navigating through my affiliate link helps support me: www.bruutea.co.uk/?sca_ref=39...
My Writing
My second novel, The Trouble with Mrs Montgomery Hurst, is coming out summer 2024.
Pre-order from Bookshop.org (UK, affiliate link): uk.bookshop.org/a/11499/97802...
Pre-order from Waterstones: www.waterstones.com/book/the-...
Pre-order from Blackwells: blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/pro...
Pre-order from Amazon (UK): www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Mrs-...
My debut novel, The Secrets of Hartwood Hall, is OUT NOW.
Buy from Waterstones (UK): www.waterstones.com/book/the-...
Buy from Bookshop.org (UK, affiliate link): uk.bookshop.org/a/11499/97802...
Buy from Amazon (UK): www.amazon.co.uk/Secrets-Hart...
Buy (US): bit.ly/HartwoodHallUS
Buy (Canada): bit.ly/HartwoodHallCAN
Goodreads: / the-secrets-of-hartwoo...
General Links
My website: www.katielumsden.co.uk
Twitter: / katiejlumsden
Instragram: / katiejlumsden
Threads: www.threads.net/@katiejlumsden
Tiktok: / katiejlumsden
Facebook: / justbooksandthings
Goodreads: / katie-lumsden
Email: katie.booksandthings@gmail.com
By coincidence(/subconscious telepathy), Claudia @SpinstersLibrary also put up a video on this subject today: ua-cam.com/video/JP1HBBJ8vaU/v-deo.html, which anyone who found this video interesting will also find interesting. She also talks a lot more about the history of the term 'classic' and the history of classic publishers, which is fascinating.
Thank you for referring to this video by Spinsters Library. Somehow, I had missed it. Just watched it and it's very good.
Nice to hear project Gutenberg mentioned. One of my hobbies is bookbinding (often just blank paper as sketchbooks) but from Gutenberg I was able to print and bind a book as a gift for an older friend. She had been talking to me about a book she’d loved when she was young but now she couldn’t find a copy anywhere. She was so surprised and happy when I gave her a handmade copy of it. (I found the copyright, or not, info very confusing so hopefully I didn’t break any laws)
Love project Gutenberg. Wow you must be talented.
The books in Project Guttenberg are in the "public domain" - so pretty much free for anyone to use how they want.
What a thoughtful gift!
I think the rules on Project Gutenberg is that a text has to be out of copyright to go up. Unless it's just out of copyright wherever their server is, and they have a disclaimer saying the rules might be different where you are. Either way, no-one's coming round to arrest you for downloading one copy of an old book off a website!
That's so fun! And yes, Gutenberg is all out of copyright books, so you definitely weren't breaking the law!
I appreciate the inclusivity of calling old books classics. It certainly opens the door for discovery of titles or authors that have not or are no longer valued. I loved the ramble.
Wow, Katie, we must be telepathic or something, because we've done our videos on this very same topic on the same day. It's spooky but also quite validating to see how much we agree on this topic. That's exactly how I use the word Classic as well, as a synonym for "old book." It makes the most sense to me. Ideally I'd want to use something even more neutral like "vintage book" or something like that, but I doubt that will catch on. The word Classic comes with so much baggage that we could all do without when discussing old books.
My personal cut-off point is 1960, though I'm rethinking of shifting that to just "60 years in the past" with a more grey area for "modern classics" (probably 1990 or something like that, it's definitely a less well defined term in my mind).
You're so right about obscure old books, too. The way people commonly define the word "classic" would make "obscure classic" an oxymoron, and these are the books that both you and I like to talk about in our videos.
Honestly I'm just nodding along to your video from start to finish. Something you mention that I didn't is the whole aspect of old fiction as historical documents, as windows into the past. It's a big draw for me as well.
And yes to the term "classics" having the unfortunate side effect of putting people off those books. They don't belong on a pedestal, they belong on our bookshelves like any other good story. We can and should read them for fun, because they are first and foremost entertainment.
(also you really made me want to read Jill, it's gone straight onto my wishlist)
Clearly there was some subconscious telepathic discussion going on here 😆
I have just watched your video, too, and was also nodding along all the way through!
If you find the topic of "what makes a classic" intriguing, you might be interested in American humorist Mark Twain's "Disappearance of Literature" speech, given on Nov 20, 1900. He argues that literary tastes inevitably change over time, such that even books which have established a high reputation might not always maintain a high readership, making the test of time irrelevant. Citing "Paradise Lost" as an example of a book that people are content to trust is a classic without actually reading it, this speech is the source of the famous quip that a classic is "something that everybody wants to have read, and nobody wants to read."
Super interesting discussion! One I’ve given much thought to in recent years.
It really hit home when you said a classic/old book is defined by when we are born. I do define a classic as a book before 1950. As for a definition, I would say a book that is still being read and enjoyed today is a classic, even if it is not in the "canon". I would certainly fight for both Anthony Trollope and Wilkie Collins to be included, even if they don't make the required reading list for all of their books. And all of the great women authors who were brushed aside by scholars deserve to be considered classics as well.
Agreed!
This was enormous fun to watch. I think we all struggle with these definitions. As human beings we seem to love finding patterns and ways of grouping things and this will always be a bit artificial and limiting. But like referring to genres, talking about classics does help make sense of the vast numbers of books out there to read. I think I'll stick to Homer and Euripides. Can't argue about them 😊
So many great thoughts here --- thanks for sharing!
I like your “ramble” thinking. That’s what we do. We think through issues and then express various rabbit holes, so to speak. Thank you for taking us through your thoughts and processes! ❤😊
I do a similar thing to you. First time around on a book, it’s for fun, but then there’s no end to exploring Jane Austen’s characters and her approach to observation. She’s never ending and repeated fun.
On the other hand “Age of Innocence “ personally haunted me for 10 years, and no one could I find to satisfactorily get to the psychological ending for the main character of Archie.
Another comparison that springs to mind is in music…. For example the difference between a hit single versus an album track by the same artist but less well known.
This is so enlightening, thanks!!! I loooove all of your explanations and just the channel in general. I first knew you from the Dickens video, since then I’ve been quite the fan of this channel :)
Thanks very much :)
I feel like there’s the classics (old literature) and there’s The Classics, does that make sense?
Interesting!
This is so interesting! I always say that I don't read classics much, in my head that means pre-1900s literature. But I would say that I enjoy modern classics which in my head runs up to about 1990. All very arbitrary!
Thank you for this video! I completely agree with your "definition" of classics!
I think this is all fascinating. I have to say that my definition is pretty simplistic: a book that is at least 50 years old and is still in print. I figure that covers all the "it has some intrinsic quality," because it wouldn't still in print if it didn't have some special quality.
This was such a great video discussion! I used to define classics in the traditional way, of standing the test of time, but since watching your channel and others on Booktube and just critically thinking a bit more about why certain books remained popular I've shifted my definition to old books. Though I tend to now see "old" as published by the 2000s.
The definition of classic is not only complicated in regard to books! I used to have a classic car and the term is debated in those circles too! I agree with what you said about our own life time being a factor in our personal view of what is classic. I was born in the mid 70s so it was weird seeing 80’s Ford escorts at a “classic car show”. Surely those are retro, not classic! Haha. And my own situation was further complicated because the model of car I owned was actually named “classic”. So people thought I was being vague or awkward when they asked what it was and I just said “it’s a classic”! Hahaha but of course that also means that my car was considered a classic from the day in came out of the factory in 1962!
So interesting that these questions apply to lots of different things!
For me, the word classics means books that are still popular and in general print that most people would recognise and praise. But personally I’m exactly like you- what I mean for myself is old books!!! 😆. But if they are generally unknown I’d probably refer to them as “Victorian” or “regency” because Classic would imply that the other person is going to have heard of it. A famous author who has many obscure books is simply a classic author, though some of his or her books are not classics. Basically it’s a word that has gone into generic use! And modern publishing technology as you pointed out has changed the landscape. The other huge factor as you pointed out is taste- everyone’s judgement will be different! And finally a parallel question which you touched on: what constitutes a “GOOD BOOK”?? How about a video on just that question? 😁🙏🙏
Maybe I should do a video on what constitutes a good book . . . I feel like it's mostly just whether or not you enjoyed it 😅 I will have a think!
I teach Japanese Classical Literature and always use their division, even for Western literature. In Japanese Literature all books written until 1868 are labelled as classics, that is. And the word they use is 古文 'kobun', 古 old 文 literature. So, when you said 'classics', I and all the Japanese people understand the same as you 😉
Fun! That's so interesting.
I've definitely been using it the same as you 😄well, I think any book pre 1960s/70s I just call a classic, then any book after that which feels 'important' is also a classic, but now I;m realising that is a weird system to have come up with.
Thank you for this video - it's given me a lot to think about :)
(on the topic of Trollope, the only one of his books I ever studied at uni was The Small House at Allington, which I think was an interesting choice)
"The Classics" really does push that concept over towards "The Canon" - like there is one list of them, and everyone agrees (uncontroversially) what is meant by that term. I feel like the Oxford Dictionary definition of "canon" that you read it probably includes the phrase "especially Western Literature" because it is a lexicographers nod to the fact that "post-colonialism" has been a thing in English Literature studies for several decades now, and part of the thrust of that sensibility has been to critique the fact that there is a tendency to associate "high quality" with a particular type of person and culture.
I certainly agree with you that using "classic" just to mean "published before year X" is the only way to come up with a simple and objective use of the term that is not including anybody's assessment of quality.
I think the observation about how we subjectively associate "classic" with our own lifetime is astute - though I watched someone extolling "Hitch Hikers Guide" as their favourite classic the other day - and I would be happy to agree with them on that even though H2G2 is a few years younger than me. But yes, as much as I love Terry Pratchett, I would hesitate to say his Discworld books are "classics" even though the early ones of those are only slightly younger than H2G2 - because I can still clearly remember when all those books were new, and the days when every student whose room I went into had a shelf of Pratchett.
Hello Katie! I find your videos to be very interesting and comforting, because of the topics you address, and because of your personality plus the background as well. To me, in order to be called a "classic", a book probably has to be written before a certain number of years, but now that I'm thinking of it, I reckon it doesn't have to be so strict, the part of the definition involving the time and age. I'll give an example right away. The other thing that I consider when calling something a classic (not just a book, I guess) is the importance, for sure, of the work of art, and to put it in other words - the FAME, or popularity which the book (in our case) has been enjoying ever since. And here comes the example: to me "Harry Potter" may definitely be considered a classic by now, even though it's been written in the 1990s. Think about it: don't you agree? What comes to my mind are also some examples with TV series: like, my favourite series ever (but also many others) "Gilmore girls" could also be referred to as a classic now, because of its popularity, even though it was created in the early 2000s. BUT! Wait: the "fame" factor has to go hand in hand with the QUALITY factor! I think that's very important. Otherwise we'd call classics an infinite number of overlookable "products" of our modern age especially. I would like to know what Katie and anyone else think about this. Looking forward to the next video 😊
To me a classic is not only an old book but also a book that years, decades and centuries after its original release people will still read, enjoy and talk about.
As for why people are relunctant to read classics, I think for some, it might be because they associate it with the books we were assigned to read at school. I remember when I was in highschool I geniuly enjoyed reading the 19th century novels that were assigned to read (I didn't like the homeworks part though😅) and my classmates thought I was a weirdo to do so 😅
To me, a classic was written in the 19th century or before and people will know the title or author without having read it. An old book is just a book that was printed over 50 years ago, its story can be a classic or not, just like I can buy a new book and it's a classic. But that's just my opinion. Thanks for your videos, always fun. ❤
I like the idea of thinking of classics as old books. But when I hear the term classic I do still have to fight the idea that I have read it as though I were in a university class. The only thing that really intimidated me about them is the length of some of them and the time commitment for a slow reader.
For me a classic was published before 1900, an ancient classic before the Renaissance, and a modern classic after 1900.
More than "stand the test of time", I think a classic is accepted as part of a canon/common list of "good literature" (I use the word "good" here in the way "beauty" is used in art, which does not necessarily mean "good writing/characterization/plot"), has had an effect in society and culture, and is somewhat recognized by our collective memory (for example, you don't have to read "Don Quixote" to know what Quixotic or tilting windmills mean). Of course, there are as many canons as there are cultures, and I would even say that there can be a personal view of what the "canon" is for an individual as a unique reader and consumer (ergo, connoisseur) of literature (that is where our personal tastes come into play). But, there will be some commonality/overlap. Interesting debate!🧡
Thx Kate; quality and age probably are the two most important criteria. On the other hand, speaking very generally, a classic could be anything that isn't contemporary. and popular. Making a list of say 100 classics of the English Language could be helpful too.
But who gets to decide what constitutes 'quality', I suppose would be my question.
@@katiejlumsden Possibly, the stories without down votes?
Hi Katie, I think that you covered some very important points here-I enjoyed the ramble! I would also say that what some individuals mean when they decide something is a classic (because 'it depicts, in a way that stands the test of time, something about the human condition,") that what they're actually referring to is the white western human condition as depicted in a book available in the English language, something that dead white men could safely relate to (!). I seldom see, for example, discussions about books defining the human condition from the Philippines, or Libya. Which brings up the subject of whether what readers perceive as the human condition may in fact sometimes be culturally contextual. Thus it's important to proactively add a "read around the world" challenge of some sort -- I know I need to read more books from other countries and voices. There's also a lot of special list making inherent in the Dewey decimal system that libraries use. Gatekeepers exist everywhere. It’s also interesting to tease out possible reasons why some book-tubers gravitate towards books written in the past in terms of what we can then give ourselves permission to avoid discussing about the present. In terms of my own reading it’s something I’d like to explore more. It’s a fascinating topic and I appreciate how you deep-dive into it, here. And by the way, you're one of the most well-read and diverse vloggers I know of, in this space.
Thanks so much :)
I understand what you mean, I do love old books outside of the "cannon," but I usually call them classics too. I think really it is a label the libraries came up with, like non-fiction, fiction, mysteries... Now we have built a whole thing around it to make it special, the books are special, I love cannon classics, but I love a lot of books outside of it. I too tend to call old books classics, but they are significant to me. I hope that makes sense.
That's what I do, too. I'm glad that it seems fairly common!
@@katiejlumsden 😄
(Melanie here) And then there's the issue of vocabulary........ What "grade level"/vocabulary level are students and readers reading? It used to be that newspapers were written at "7th grade level" (in the US) but now what is the level of most communication (media, print etc) As the average reader may understand a much smaller range of vocabulary, this determines which books are in print or downloaded on Kindle or audiobook. My father read the classics to me and I often didn't understand all the words, but I got a sense of their meaning. I became comfortable with reading literature that was a step beyond my comprehension. But I find that readers today seem to not tolerate that or become intimidated by it.
It's interesting - I do sometimes think that one of the reasons why I love Victorian literature is that I got into it when I was 13/14, at an age when I was used to not understanding all the words in anything I read. It never bothers me if I don't understand all the words; usually, you get enough from context - but I think that comes back to the issue of people feeling they have to understand or analyse classics rather than just reading them for fun.
I use classic in the EXACT same way as you. I just mean old book (I normally use 20 years, because that's the embargo on history, but as 20 years is 2004 that does feel strange as a 90s kid so I say 30 😂). But to me classics aren't remarkable because they are literary geniuses but because they can tell something about the past. I love my social history, I love my classics.
I read Jill because of your recomendation. And found my love to Trolope thru Victober even if I only read two but I love them. All these book I like more that I like Pride and prejudice . So I controvesal to when I donut love a book that many sees as that THE Classics with a big.Capitals.
I'm from Sweden and II should liked if you been able to read our classics bur I think it's hard to find translations.
Very interesting video. I've never thought about any distinction, but that's likely due to having only read old books that are considered classics in the sense that they have maintained popularity, have been considered part of the canon, etc. I do also have concerns about how we choose what to label a classic, who gets to decide, and how that feeds into book elitism (especially surrounding genre fiction.)
Is there any chance you will do one of the in depth videos you mentioned about modern authors you love, like the ones you've done about Dickens? I hadn't thought of it until you mentioned it in this video, but I immediately thought it would be interesting.
Maybe I should. I think I partly don't tend to because for me, doing in depth videos like that are things I only do on rereads, and I don't reread contemporary literature as much (mostly because I've read it more recently, I guess). Maybe the next time I reread a Natasha Pulley or Diane Setterfield book, I will!
I agree with your definition of classics.
A woman after my own heart. 😊
I tend to think of “classic” as more of a marketing term than not. So Coca-cola Classic. But it’s a useful shorthand.
Interesting topic! I use the term classic as almost as a synonym for an old book, though not entirely. For example, I recently required a small book from 1963 (2nd edition) that tells a local legend from the area where my grandparents are from. I suspect the editions were small and the legend largely forgotten, certainly not known on a national level. So personally I probably wouldn't say that book is a classic, even though it's old.
At my home library, I have shelves for "classics", "modern classics" and "contemporary", and basically classics = over 100 years old, modern classics = over 50 years old and the rest are contemporary. This makes sense to me, but perhaps not to anyone else 🙂
Thanks for posting on this interesting topic, Katie. I think you may (as you seem to admit) be a bit out of the mainstream by merely referring to old books as classic, but your reasons are explained and solid, if personal.
With old cars (like here in the western US), a classic must be of a certain vintage (typically 20 or 25 years old) but must ALSO be significant or exemplary of the times and must look the part. A poorly preserved 30-year old Ford Falcon will likely be dismissed as an old wreck.
NONE of the books you described as your classics for 2023 would be considered that by me, despite you considering them good and worth a read. They are minor or mostly forgotten efforts, although, yes, they are old books.
Gone with the Wind, Mill on the Floss, Wuthering Heights, Gentleman's Agreement, and Remembrance of Things (or Times) Past are all classics, even acknowledged by me, although I've never been able to complete any of them. They are all old and still speak to many; they've made their mark. Any shortness of appreciation seems to be my problem, not the reading public's.
But this is just my opinion.
Oh I must be literacies worst nightmare when it comes to defining classics I think after listening to this. I tend to define a classic as anything pre 1950 that I’ve really enjoyed reading and would reread over and over coz I lost myself in another era while reading it
I’m definitely with you on classics but for me it’s anything written before the 1980’s as I was born in 1979
It definitely depends on when you were born!
A rose by any other name...if I go into a bookstore tomorrow and find the section formerly known as the classics section is now the old fogies section I'm cool with that. A literary classic for me is a work that has a touch of class about it irrespective of the vintage. In terms of mentioning the thanks or tips jar can you state if UA-cam takes a percentage of the donation? Other creators use the platform Ko-fi so I'm wondering if you would receive more with this option.
UA-cam takes a percentage, yes. I've sort of debated Ko-fi and things like that - I think I will probably start a Patreon at some point, but have been pondering how exactly to use it.
Rip Van Winkle is a classic!
(Melanie here)
Thank you!
Interesting topic. But as you said, it's a bit of a ramble, if entertaining.
For what it's worth, classic film is loosely defined as 25 years old, good or bad. I wonder if the same applies to literature?
I agree that Mortimer Adler's and Harold Bloom's Western Canon lists are criticised as a narrow selections written by straight middle-aged white men, but those lists are truly phenomenal, regardless what people may say about them now. If we do wish to be critical, lists speak more on the people who created them as much as their contents,, so a man of western classical education will gravitate towards works in that vein. I have that very same failing: I am a product of Western culture, and when I do dip into Eastern texts I do on occasion find myself groping for context. Whatever the failings of Alder's and Bloom's lists, and indeed Oxford's and Penguin's and Harvard's selections, they do give people a starting point.
Lists are suggestive, though. And exclusive. Most lists will lack classic SF. It and Fantasy have canonical reading lists as well, usually ignored by "serious" classics lists. The same can be said about any other genre. Being Canadian, we too have our own "classics." I doubt anyone has developed a canonical list, as yet, however; and I wonder if our collective self-deprecation would allow it. I wish we would, as I believe our best authors stand up to the very best anywhere.
I've only recently dove deeply into Regency, Victorian, and Edwardian Lit, although I have always read certain authors from these periods. I blame you, among others. So many book, so little time.
I just mean old books! And I don't use the definate article. 😂
I tend to view classics the same way as you, any book that came before I was born, like a BM and AM (before me and after me 😂) My only grey area is when the book has been published in the 80s but the author is still alive and publishing, is weird to categorize one book as classic and one as contemporary when they come from the same author.
Haha I think a lot of people feel like that! It's true, actually - I would never call The Remains of the Day a classic (it's one of my favourite novels); it's from 1989, but Ishiguro's still writing, so that would feel weird!
For me a more than 50 year old book is an automatic classic 😅
I don't find defining classics simply as "old books" to be meaningful in any sense. It's not like some obscure, undistinguished novel from the past can share the same category of what we generally consider to be a noteworthy work of literature without removing any way for that category to be useful. I've only ever seen and heard this word used for works perceived as notable, significant in their literary historical context and so relevant they're remembered and still discussed in present time - so it's ample and indefinite enough a concept to include much more than just the most famous "canonic" works. The timeline may span from the classical antiquity up until the 19th century; for the first half of the 20th century they're generally categorized as modern classics, and as contemporary classics after that.
The argument of a lack of objective criteria is in my view surpassed by the conveniency of restricting this category to not be just a more glorified synonym for "old book", and by the fact that an idea of what can be considered as a notable work of literature from the past can be safely inferred and generalized even without a set of very specific prerequisites. And if a work is rediscovered in its historical and artistic value as a classic, well then it becomes a classic. And if it's not being rediscovered as such but you love it anyway, then maybe it's a "personal" classic, or maybe you think it should be regarded as a classic but it's generally not. And of course everyone's perfectly entitled to dislike a classic, I don't think there needs to be an equivalence "classic=indisputable and objective greatness". It's just a collectively negotiated classification for what is deemed to be especially relevant and significant in different ways; it's not a a perfectly clear-cut concept but it's only useful that way really.
And I totally agree with your conclusion that classics should be read for pleasure and for fun; but I don't think removing the word "classic" from the equation altoghether is better than just being conscious of the limitations and partially relative nature of the term.
Maybe I should give them a try . I'm getting sick of Dean Koontz and Stephen King !
I agree with you and not with the "classic" definitions of classic, because they are ambiguous and subjective. A classic may be a synonim of a good book, but I prefer the distinctions based on the year of publication. I don't like to call the classics "old books", because this can mean other things. I hope you are going to continue referring to classics in your own old way!
I consider a classic anything published by before 1900. Anything from 1901-1970 is a modern classic.
"Classic" is a term I cordially dislike, and would only use unironically about works from the ancient world, in which case it gets a capital C. Possibly this is a result of having been educated at a time when Structuralism and Deconstruction were still a whole thing, and value judgments were not. Anyway, "classic" reeks of Palgrave's Golden Treasury; Arthur Quiller-Couch; The Western Canon; Jordan Peterson; Michael Gove; uniform editions and middle class, middle brow consensus - none of which appeal to me in the slightest. All of which is to say that I pretty much agree with everything you said, Katie - yay.
I LOVE George Eliot!!! 🩷🩷🩷 😅
Great Video! You made me think about some things... 🤔 A few new authors I want research & read. 🙂