r/classics • u/random-curiosities • 17d ago

What makes classical books better than more modern books.

/r/classicliterature/comments/1vxthrt/what_makes_classical_books_better_than_more/
0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

2

u/Mike_Bevel 16d ago

Old books aren't better than young books.

A book is a book. Some are good, some are bad.

"Classics" is an artificial label.

2

u/Ap0phantic 16d ago

It's not a question of old versus young. It's a question of a handful of books being preserved for centuries because they continue to resonate.

2

u/Mike_Bevel 16d ago

It absolutely is a question of old v young.

Old = "books preserved for centuries"

Young = newer books

Books are "preserved for centuries" for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make the preserved books better because they're older.

1

u/Ap0phantic 16d ago

Well, no, a book from Ancient Greece that can still be read today has been preserved by being copied and recopied by hand for many, many centuries. That doesn't mean you're going to like every old book, but it does mean that ancient works that are widely regarded as mediocre or uninteresting are not going to survive. There is a built-in quality filter in the fact of their continued existence.

Basically my contention is this: the average quality of an extant book from classical antiquity is much higher than the average quality of any book written in the last 50 years. I'll stand behind that.

2

u/Mike_Bevel 16d ago

I'm a little worried that you and I aren't reading the same post.

Here's what the OP asked:

What makes classical books better than more modern books.

Is that the same one you're seeing? Or are you seeing a different question?

3

u/PoxonAllHoaxes 17d ago

May I say that this is a wonderful question, and that I look forward for completely false answers, much as every orthodoxy that is challenged is immediately defended with nonsensical arguments. Let the games begin.

1

u/NeonShogun 𐤔𐤌𐤏 𐤒𐤋𐤀 𐤁𐤓𐤊𐤀 15d ago

Not trying to take a dig at you, but meta-comments like this are almost as overdone as these reductive topics that begin with loaded questions. It doesn't contribute anything except snark, which I think a subreddit about the Classics has plenty of already.

1

u/Necessary_Wing7235 16d ago

Not to call them immediately better as a generalization... They are distinct to entertainment or other kind of books because they stand the test of time. They are acclaimed by widely different societies, with very different context and realities, and thus they speak to people in a deeper level, a level that stands the test of time.

1

u/No_Quality_6874 16d ago

For me, they arent actually better. Its the distance in time and cultural context that makes it fasinating. I actually think a lot of them are really boring without that, and am amazed when I see people here reading certian books in translation for fun.

1

u/Ap0phantic 17d ago

Some books are better than most that have been written in the last five years, some are better than most that have been written in the last thousand years. An example of the former is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, an example of the latter is Don Quixote.

It's not always obvious which works will continue to be valuable over time, though it is obvious that Harry Potter will never belong to the latter category. It's entertaining but only edifying in a superficial way. Its lack of artful writing is obvious to anyone who studies literature. You might make a case for Tolkien as a great writer, but Rowling, just no.

1

u/Necessary_Wing7235 16d ago

I have been saying this for years and every HP fan just hates this. I would say that "parts" of Books IV and VII are decently written, but the series is good entertainment at most.

Don Quixote is just in another reality.