Why Classics?

Because my Blog #2 is late, I have the advantage of responding to some of the conversations we had in class concerning Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Wilhelm's "You Gotta BE The Book."  We discussed Shakespeare and Nathaniel Hawthorne a bit in class, and why they are "classics," and what in general makes a book a classic.  I pondered that for some time, and have arrived at the same conclusion (satisfactory to me, though I doubt all would agree with me) that I began with.

One student responded to the question of what makes a classic with the definition, "a novel revolutionary in its time."  This may be true, though I am not in agreement that it is the main factor in the definition of a "classic." Rather, I would argue, a classic is defined by its quality of timeliness, and that quality of timeliness is revealed in the enduring contemporaneity of its themes (and other elements, such as character).

What marks enduring works of literature, and admits them to our canon, is their ability to appeal to readers in any age; to sustain in value long beyond the specific time and place of their creation; to capture something about the human experience that transcends time and place.

Shakespeare has endured because the characters and themes in his work(s) are ones that decade after decade, century after century - despite a multitude of differences that have characterized our modern world versus Shakespeare's (including drastic language shifts) - have endured and are able, therefore, to both teach us about our collective history and our individual existence and, perhaps most importantly, the triumphant lessons of humanity and humanism. 

"The Scarlet Letter" should still be taught because it still has a valuable message to deliver; a message still relevant and applicable in today's world.  While the individual or group being scorned may (have) shift(ed), the experience remains quite the same, and the potential for evaluation of the self and its place in the world(s) around it remains invaluable.  In fact, a recent film (Easy A) captured this "heart" of "The Scarlet Letter" (perhaps in a way more appealing to today's adolescents).  And teaching the enduring relevance of the classic by using its modern interpretation is often a wise move for a teacher of adolescent literature; it very often captures student interest with much more vigor. 

On the other hand, the "classics" - which constitute our canon - are also a mechanism of power and control, whereby those in power continue to control an entire cultural set of beliefs.  That is a topic for another blog, to be sure, but it bears mention here that the classics should by no means be taught exclusively.  They should remain options - some perhaps less optional than others - but they should always be re-examined for appeal and usefulness, and the teacher's mind should always be open to introducing new works, of varying genres, to the repertoire of his or her own canon - else she is not doing her job.