I hear what you're saying, Miker, and don't necessarily
disagree, but what I was trying to ascertain was what
criteria you use to determine that a book has passed the test
of time (not what attributes such books may have in common).
Apologies for the imprecise question.
For instance, One World Classics has just republished James
Hanley's BOY
(literary noir, so on topic, Curt, and I'm snagging a copy
cause it sounds superb), first published in 1931. Does that
make it a classic? London Books has just republished James
Curtis's THE GILT KID (noir again, from 1936) in its
'classics' series. So, again, 70 years on from first
publication, surely an indicator of longevity, endurance,
whatever you want to call it. But both books have been out of
print for many years. So if your criteria for membership of
the classics club required a consistency of sales over a
number of years, then neither book could be called a
classic.
(links to publishers sites for BOY and THE GILT KID)
http://www.oneworldclassics.com/cgi_bin/cart/commerce.cgi?pid=1&log_pid=yes
http://www.london-books.co.uk/BOOKS/giltkid.html
Al
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Robison" <
miker_zspider@yahoo.com> To: <
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, November
05, 2007 12:06 AM Subject: RARA-AVIS: The definition of
classic
> Allan Guthrie wrote:
>
> So what's your criteria for passing the test of
time?
>
> ****************
> I think that in order to become a classic a work
has
> to present an interesting view on truth, morality,
or
> aesthetics.
>
> My personal preference is for lots of sex
and
> violence, gratuitous if at all possible.
>
> miker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Nov 2007 EST