The Italian journalist, critic, and fiction writer Italo Calvino wrote a famous essay called "Why Read the Classics." In it, Calvino offers a number of pithy observations about why read and what it means to read books that have been dubbed "classics" by past generations. Here are few examples:
--"Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading."
--"A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say."
A longer list of snippets from the essay can be found here:
http://des.emory.edu/mfp/calvino/calclassics.html
In comments for this thread, I'd like to hear you reflect on what you think a "classic" IS or SHOULD BE. If you don't much like the term, tell us why. I'm also interested in hearing responses to Calvino's claims. Do most people arrive at some (if not, all) of the classics already knowing the story (thus making even the first reading something like re-reading)? Is the sense of inexhaustiblity central to your understanding of a "classic"?
Although I agree with Calvino's description of "classics," I feel as though he is missing the essence of what makes a piece of literature or any work of art a "classic." It seems as though the essential aspect of a "classic" is that it is revolutionary. Because "classics" contain revolutionary characteristics, they become foundational for the future works of literature and art. For example, the Odyssey and Shakespeare are alluded to throughout a variety of artistic mediums. Therefore a piece of literature is not merely a "classic" because it contains intrinsic revolutionary characteristics, but because these features additionally evoke a shift (possibly even a minor one at that) in the paradigm of following works of literature and art.
ReplyDeleteJosh Gaghan
For the most part, I agree with Calvino's description of what a "classic" is. After reading through the snippets from the essay, one of the points stood out to me specifically. The statement, in summary, says, "a classic does not necessarily teach us anything we did not know before. In a classic we sometimes discover something we have always known (or thought we knew), but without knowing that this author said it first..." I find this statement to be overwhelmingly true, as in my own experience, I have had many "aha" moments when I finally connect the dots of where something originates. I also really like his statement that "A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say." I think what Calvino is alluding to is that a classic is timeless. A classics themes never cease to relate to the many different generations that read them. The messages are always applicable and the relevancy is timeless.
ReplyDeleteElise Anderson
A "classic" makes me think of books and authors that have withstood the test of time. They still have truths and lessons that apply to us today. I believe that they also capture or recapture a time period or a culture that the author thinks the reader can learn from. Taking a step back in time or into a different place allows the readers to look at something from a different point of view. This different point of view can help the reader see what another culture was like, what there problems were/are, and how they dealt with them. Because history repeats its self the "classics" many times provide readers with advise or warnings. I would agree Calvino's claims, although i think that not everyone comes into all "classics" knowing the story. When one does know the stories they become better when re-read. Therefore, i believe that all "classics" have that inexhaustiblity to many people other wise they would not be around to day.
ReplyDeleteSam Cote
I agree partly with Calvino's definition of a classic. I do not completely agree that reading a classic is a rereading, though. Classics deal with universal subjects, so we recognize the themes, and often we connect the dots when reading. However, just because it has universal themes, it does not mean that it is a rereading of previous knowledge. A classic presents the theme in a new light, so we can continue to learn from it, and it spurs new thinking. In this way, it allows for new insights. I agree with the quote that "A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say." Since a classic allows new insights into human nature, we can continue to learn from it over time, and since it deals with universal subjects, it can stand the test of time.
ReplyDeleteMolly Bender
I don't think a reading of a classic necessarily has to be a re-reading, but it often probably is because people have indeed heard the story before. There's nothing wrong with this however because reading the prose and poetry of a written story is much different than seeing the play or hearing the story told to you.
ReplyDeleteClassics are indeed those that have "never finished saying what [they have] to say" in the sense that there is always something new to glean from them, and something to be discovered that one has missed in a previous reading. Hopefully we as Christians can consider the Bible somewhat of a classic, in the sense that it is always teaching us new things as we seek further revelation.
I don't think classics have to be inexhaustible, but if you are learning new things on each read, they are perhaps on some account inexhaustible. This however could be due to the reader getting new info, not the reading itself. Thus what a classic should be is something that is widely loved by all, "loved" meaning it is useful for learning and for enjoyment.
I found myself agreeing with some of Calvin's claims and disagreeing with others. I don't agree that reading a classic is a rereading. What I do find is reading more recent novels feels like a rereading of classics. So many of today's novelists use themes, ideas, even characteristics of characters that come from novels that are considered "classics". I do believe Calvino is spot on when he says "every rereading of a classic is as much a voyage of discovery as the first reading". Because there is so much to learn from classics, every rereading teaches us different lessons and values. We can even learn more about the characters and different relationships among the characters. Universal themes found in classics have allowed them to stand the test of time and continue throughout generations.
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with Calvino's claim that “every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading.” With the emphasis on the universality and timelessness of a classic, we “reread” classics, for themes found in classics often pervade through much of literature throughout history. However, if we see the classic as full of fresh artistic and intellectual insight, then we only “read” the classics as if we have read them for the first time. Generally, I get a sense that classics are often instructive. Within a classic, one can often discover comments on life, love, lifestyles, death, and other broad and narrow topics. However, unlike a book that comments on a characteristic that is limited by time and space, a classic goes beyond that. A classic is rich in insight and knowledge, and with each read we only get snippets of the fullness of the classic. In that sense, I do agree that inexhaustibility is central to understanding a classic.
ReplyDeleteA “classic” to me is a story that not only successfully captures an audience’s attention, but also their minds. Through the plot and characters a “classic” presents an omnipresent, relevant, and often revolutionary theme that lures the audience to question the very center of their beliefs. In this way I agree with Calvino when he states that the audience upon reading a classic cannot be impartial, because no one can remain impartial when the author is questioning their lifestyle. The other idea Calvino presents that I agree with is when he states that a “classic” is never finished saying what it has to say. Every time I read a story that is deemed a “classic” I always coming away with something different. A classic is a story that relates to people in all stages and situations in life, and therefore it is never finished saying what it has to say.
ReplyDeleteAlex Brown
I think a classic can take a number of different forms. It could either be completely revolutionary and different from anything previously in existence, opening up the path for other works to follow, or it could approach an already existing theme in a fresh perspective bringing new things to light about these themes.
ReplyDeleteCalvino makes some really good points in his observations on classics. I especially like how he says that "In a classic we sometimes discover something we already knew (or thought we knew), but without knowing that this author said it first." I agree and i think this shows just how much of an influence classics can have that we can learn things (indirectly) from them without even realizing it. In contrast to this, Calvino also says that we'll always be able to glean something new from every fresh re-reading of a classic. This also shows how powerful classics are that we cannot not nearly learn everything that the classic has to tell us just from one reading, or even from a number of readings of it.
When I think of the word "classic", I immediately think of the NHL Winter Classic. I know, not too close in relation to The Odyssey as far as physical comparison goes, however the term could be clarified through a unique comparison such as this. When I hear someone say that "this is classic," or "this is a classic" whether it be a bound piece of parchment or a competition on ice, I am anticipating what I am viewing to be of the up most excellence. I expect both teams to be competing to the games highest level of ability and when I pick up a "classic" to read I am expecting to be holding greatness, and hopefully reading an artist who is of the highest of excellence at his craft.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the bit on Calvino is concerned, I agree to disagree.I feel as though his definition of a "classic" would be anticipatory of what I would expect, that is a very articulate, pronounced, and extremely professional piece of work. However I do not feel as though stating that every reading of a "classic" is a re-read. Just because the history behind most "classics" have been heard and the tales have already been told doesn't mean that a reader who is embarking into the story for the first time should act as though they are above the nature of the themes, motives, and characters of the story. A lot can be learned about ones self through the initial read of a professional's work, just as a little tyke can learn skill sets and technique the first time he watches Sidney Crosby play hockey at the NHL Winter Classic.
spencer mccreary
I think a classic is a book that can be read over and over again without getting old. A classic can be read by any person of any age and be completely enjoyed. In order for a book to be a classic to me, it needs to have depth and be intriguing. I need to be completely lost in its pages and lose time being deep into the pages. To be a classic I need to see myself in the characters and feel myself pulled along with the story. A classic is a book that you can't put down, and that everyone who elects to read it absolutely loves. A classic needs to capture its audience. It can't be predictable, it needs to twist and turn so that you can't wait to figure out how the author chooses to end it. I think that a classic is a rare find, and it different people may have different tastes- but a true classic will span all tastes and persons and resonate in every reader's heart.
ReplyDelete(This is Grace MacKenzie)
Delete