Why aren't the 'classics' held to the same standard

If anything, genre is held to a lesser standard than clasiscis

>>9488873
A classic is a book that has been held in high regard due to its influence on later writers and its readers, and in some cases it can also have a positive impact on certain regions (obvious example, but people visiting London solely to follow the fictitious footsteps of Sherlock Holmes). Books will be considered as worthy of "classic" status if it's seen as an important contribution to literature/literary fiction. This can be due to it having a well-structured narrative (Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men or The Grapes of Wrath), important, universal themes (Orwell's 1984, Dostoevsky's Crime & Punishment), sublime prose (James Joyce's Ulysses, Melville's Moby Dick, Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse) and even an appropriate sense of pacing (Yukio Mishima's whole bibliography). A classic novel can often incorporate all of these elements exceptionally, the author showing a true understanding of their craft.

Books within the literary canon are also a good example of classics, but not only do they implement prose, themes, narrative and pacing to their best ability, but many early classic texts are representative of early civilisations and what would later become the civilisation we currently live in.

Some books are classified as classics due to their importance (albeit that significance may fade with certain classics as they age, depending on who you ask regarding which classics). Other books aren't included because they're probably not to the same standard. Or they're just shit.

>What even is a 'classic', and why are some old books included while others aren't?
"Classics" is indeed a very unclear term, if not meaningless altogether. I'd rather have it discarded or defined much more precisely. In my country the equivalent word for it is practically never used and we're doing just fine.

File: 0913209124.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

if serious, see Italo Calvino's _Why Read the Classics?_.

>>9488873
Classics can also refer to Greek and Roman works specifically.

>>9488897
Any form of literature has a genre.

classics were a mistake

A classic is a book that everyone praises and no one reads.

>>9488977
>Classics can also refer to Greek and Roman works specifically

Classics used in that sense refers to early/ancient Western civilizations generally. This would include ancient Egypt, Babylon, etc.

>>9488873
test

>>9490912
You are right. Thanks for clarifying that.

Time separates the wheat from the chaff. It's not good because it's what's left, it's what's left because it's good.

>>9491201
>is implies ought

Go to bed, Sam