What is a Classic?

 The question in this page's title is one I've often wondered about. I think there are a couple of definitions I like to use for classics that I shuffle through. Without any debate, if "Classic" is a suggested tag on Goodreads, I count it. However, there are several books I count as classics that don't meet that criteria: Hitchhiker's Guide, for instance.

Why do I count Hitchhiker's Guide? Well. I know several people in real life who consider it a classic, and culturally speaking it's a classic. Everything has referenced Hitchhiker's Guide.

Also, books like "My Immortal" by Tara Gilesby have been jokingly marked as classics, which makes my point less valid even moreso.

Well, that makes things a bit tricky. Let's establish some new rules with a book that isn't tagged as a classic: What about Good Omens? Why is that a classic? Well, I count it because of a couple of factors: 1:  cultural relevancy. This book holds up well in the modern age. 2: critical acclaim. 3: cult classic status. You could also argue that if a book is about philosophy or is written by an old person, it checks off an optional box for classic. With these three criteria, I have proven that your average Joe's corny romance/mystery/horror novel doesn't count as a classic: they lack critical acclaim, staying power, and a cult classic status.

Let's talk critical acclaim specifically in the context of a book that's definitely a classic: Moby Dick. This book is only considered a classic because of the fact that it was re-evaluated. The book was initially hated upon its release. So I guess we can say that in present day it has to be respected for it to be a classic.

Moby Dick, by this logic, also cannot be considered a classic because it doesn't hold up particularly well since nobody I know is a pirate. Alright, let's try to redefine what "holds up" means. Do I still know what's going on in the book (aside from just the fact that language has changed)? Yes. Therefore it holds up.

So now I have just proven Moby Dick is a classic. But wanna know what isn't, by my logic? The Old Man and the Sea. I said that in modern day the book has to be respected, but TOMATS has since fallen from grace from its original stature, having been re-evaluated and now is considered mediocre in comparison to Hemmingway's other works. So I guess now we have to change that rule, too: It has to respected throughout at least some point in time. But doesn't that defeat the point of arguing that a book has to have staying power? See, now you're starting to understand!

The "Classic" label is one that you can apply with whatever rules you please. You could say the following:

For obvious reasons, though, that's not gonna cut it. War and Peace isn't not a classic because I don't like it.

I've had a friend argue that Fraternity by Andy Mientus could be considered a modern classic and my opinion as to why is because the book is too new for it to have proven that it was ever anything more than something to fill up shelves at a Barnes' and Nobles.

I have now just successfully proven to you how arbitrary labels can be, because even then, I'll just group whatever I feel like in with the classics shelf. In short: I don't care what's "technically" a classic, because that's a stupid label with little to no real qualifications behind it.

Call anything you want a classic because it honestly doesn't matters what is and isn't. Instead of drawing a flowchart that skims off every possible "not classic"-worthy status, here's a very "easy to understand" venn diagram where every bubble shares no overlap for some reason, explaining how to easily qualify everything into groups.

Except this graph is stupid. Duh. Call whatever you want a classic.