If you go to a bookstore and look at the fiction section, you'll see that there is a section called "classics" and there is a section called "modern fiction". The modern fiction section is further divided into "horror", "fantasy", "science-fiction", "suspense", etc. but the classics section usually isn't divided at all. Both sections are then arranged in alphabetical order by author last name.

So here is the thing. I would bet that there is a realistic basis for this. Classic fiction is regarded as classic so it is grouped together and because it spans a large amount of years, it is only further organized by author, whereas modern fiction can be organized quite easily by genre because the author or publisher can indicate as much as the books are publisher. There need be no major attempt at classification with modern books. They can be done one by one as published. This is why I believe these books are so organized.

However, it also gives the appearance that all classic books are of equal merit as 'classic' so they need no further (petty) distinction by genre because they 'transcend' genre, whereas lowly modern fiction is so crude that you might as well organize them by genre to make it easier for the Philistines who read them.

If there weren't truly a pragmatic reason to keep the classics separate from the modern fiction, I would prefer to see genre as being the main heading. With "classic" being a category as a subheading per genre. For example, rather than looking for Dracula in classics, you would look for Dracula in Horror, in the "classic" subheading of horror, whereas Stephen King would be in the "modern" or "contemporary" subheading of horror.

To those who care about genre, like myself, this is a perfectly useful designation, and the only argument I can see against it, once the effort is made to classify all classics by genre, is the classicists don't want to provide such a 'low' distinction to classic books, no matter how useful it would be.

However, if genre really isn't that important, why bother classifying modern fiction by genre?

Any thoughts?

i think that depends which book store you go into ... you didn't really mention how many 'classic' books they are selling versus how many 'modern' books they are selling...

but it may be that you are joking entirely.. it's hard to tell.. i mean .. 'philistines'?

I'm not sure what you are asking. OK, it is true I am talking more about Borders or Barnes and Noble and not 57th Street Books in Hyde Park, Chicago. The sections are about equal size it seems between 'classics' and 'modern fiction'. But then in modern fiction only there are about 6 or 7 subsections (based on genre).

I am not saying that those who read modern fictions ARE philistines. I am arguing that some of those who read classics may be snooty enough to regard them as such if they think only classics 'transcend' genre and not modern fiction (I couldn't tell if you knew that is what I meant or not).

Obviously classics deserve some sort of recognition as classics but I don't consider every classic book to be dripping with wisdom and every modern fiction book to be devoid of wisdom, so my point is why not organize them equally, i.e. either both sections by genre, or neither section by genre?

if the sections are equal sizes then no idea. maybe they're just lazy. or maybe they think people won't be able to find them and won't know what genre something 'classic' is because it's always just been in the classic genre. personally i can never find anything in modern fiction because of that so who knows.

but i don't think ive ever been in a barnes and noble, or a borders.

It's simple, I suppose, given a certain train of thought, or could be.

First off, wisdom is not what makes something classic, so whether or not a classic is 'dripping' with it is somewhat irrelevant. What makes something classic is man's ability to be the beneficiary of it century after century, and in certain cases millennium after millenium. This can mean a variety of things, but ultimately what we are dealing with is something which was done well enough that it transcends its time, and is not limited by the various fetishes and interests of it, though it will generally pertain to them.

Now, does the term 'classic' denote, necessarily, something which transcends its genre?
No, not necessarily. However, I think you chose an all too likely book for your example. Dracula is a classic of the genre of Horror fiction, clearly, but that's a bit of a safe route to testing your point. What if I were to take War and Peace?
Would we put that in War Fiction, or whatever genre? I don't think so. After all, it's not really about the war, but the people in it. But even more than that, it's about the world which encompasses the war, so what do we do with that?
Personally, the idea that a classic transcends genre is not so poncy to me. I don't think being a classic makes it a necessity, but I certainly would like to see someone try and categorize every classic in a genre. I would get a good laugh out of that.
All 'transcending genre' means is that it doesn't fit a pre-established category. You've probably noticed the section of the bookstore which is just 'novels' or 'fiction'? Those are the ones that don't adhere to a pre-established form, and therefore transcend genre in their own way, and most bookstores (B&N for sure) follow that method.

Now, personally, I'm fine with setting classics aside.
I see nothing wrong with having a section for books which have stood the test of time set apart from those which have yet to. I don't care if there is a classic in the Fiction section if it's new. Mostly because it hasn't proven itself a classic yet by standing the test of time.

So, ultimately, I would say you jump the gun with this distinction: "I don't consider every classic book to be dripping with wisdom and every modern fiction book to be devoid of wisdom"

The reason a classic is a classic is that it has stood the test of time, not that it has wisdom (what wisdom is in Marlowe?), and that is its pre-established form, what makes it its own 'genre'.

Well first (for sake of clarity), how has a classic stood the test of time? Simply by being published? Who decides?

However, OK, lets assume that classics have stood the test of time and that War and Peace like many classics are difficult to categorize by genre. Fine, I'm OK with that. But now where do you put Clive Barker's "The Great and Secret Show". Unlike classics, as modern fiction it is not simply in MODERN FICTION/AUTHOR LAST NAME B, but rather it is in MODERN FICTION/HORROR/AUTHOR LAST NAME B, but to my understanding, it is not a horror novel. So why is it there? Because Clive Barker gained his notarity with "The Books of Blood" which was very much horror and has written other horror books. Keep in mind I am forcing an example because I have limited knowledge of modern fiction. I sure others can think of better examples where a modern fiction work, like the classic War and Peace, is really about the people involved. So why do these books get classified by genre, why not classify the modern fiction books simply by author last name akin to the classics. In other words, you answered half my question. You answered why classics shouldn't be classified by genre, but you didn't answer why modern fiction should be. You could still keep classics and modern fiction separate to preserve the "test of time", but isn't it just as much a disservice, inaccuracy, presumption, etc. to relegate a modern fiction novel to fitting a genre as it is a classic novel to a genre?

I'm sorry, but I have to chime in to say that question is the lamest one you've ever asked. ¬¬

Great nonresponse thus demonstrating the common assumptions of which I am being critical.

EDIT: Correction this wasn't a nonresponse, it was an ad hominem attack which is actually worse than a nonresponse.

Correction, that was Gnash responding with his opinion on your response. Ad Hominem would be if Gnash said "your question is lame, and therefore wrong."
Remember, man, it's still a forum for opinions, and no one's held to the rules of logic.

To return to the question in question, I think I'll mention our discussion on music. Those are the 'classics' of music, and why are they still here, and given their own category in music stores? People still listen to them.
Same with books, it's not some publisher's conspiracy against the equality of books (it's a fact that classics make less money than modern fiction, anyway), they are still read, and therefore still published. Demand initiates re-publication, re-publication allows for demand to continue, not the other way around.
That's what's remarkable about standing the test of time, that's why they've earned it.

Correction (!): I knew that was the Gnasher and not you (so your sarcasm backfired ). I called it a nonresponse because he chose to 'chime in' as he said without answering the question.

It is an ad hominem attack. He didn't address the merits of the content of the discussion but rather chose to focus on attacking the person asking the question, me, by comparing this question to other one's that I have asked and saying this was the lamest. That was all he chose to chime in to say. Even if it is construed that it was somehow pertinent to criticize the question itself, the fact that he presented his attack specifically referring to me subjectively, when attacking the question itself in no way calls for that, implies an ad hominem attack. Well that is my opinion anyways. Are you going to logically argue with my opinion?

Of course the classics are still read (!), they are the ones being published. How can you read a book that isn't published? The presently published classics retain a past monopoly and preserve a future monopoly with respect to books contemporary to their time period or with respect to those books that antedate their time period until someone decides to substitute them out with other books (contemporary or antedating the substituted books) not presently published. Does this really make them classic? They haven't all earned it. Some remain their by privilege.

You still haven't answered why it is appropriate to collapse modern fiction to fit a genre designation.

Correction, I knew you weren't talking to me, and I wasn't being sarcastic. He wasn't decrying the validity of your question, or saying that it was false, and therefore wasn't testing it, making it impossible for it to be anything but opinion. Furthermore, it was an attack on the question, not you, which is a whole 'nother kind of fallacy, even if he was actually using it to test it.

I think I've already said everything I would respond to your second paragraph with.

And I don't really find that question very interesting, so I haven't answered it.

So you will in fact logically argue with my opinion.

OK, well we disagree. I am not persuaded.

You don't find 'that question very interesting'? THAT is your reason? OK.

To the glory of the classics and the classics alone and their inability to be captured within a genre unlike the modern fiction!

To their glory!

Firstly, that wasn't an opinion, that was an assertion of fact on the part of Gnash's statement, which was wrong, and therefore open to logical assessment. Unless you're one of those wonky people who doesn't believe in fact.

I think, Bo, you'll find I already acknowledged that classics can fit genres, it was one of the first things I did. I also said that transcending genre was not a big deal, and that a portion of modern fiction does it too, so in the end that's not really why classics get set aside.
I just don't really mind them being not filed in their genres, if they have them, just as I don't mind them being filed with their genre, as I've seen Dracula in the horror section many a time.

It's not about the glory of the classics. I admit that they are many of them glorious achievements, but that's not why I agree with them being set aside. You seem to just skip right over what I said about them being 'in demand', and immediately retaliate with:

"Of course the classics are still read (!), they are the ones being published. How can you read a book that isn't published? The presently published classics retain a past monopoly and preserve a future monopoly with respect to books contemporary to their time period or with respect to those books that antedate their time period until someone decides to substitute them out with other books (contemporary or antedating the substituted books) not presently published. Does this really make them classic? They haven't all earned it. Some remain their by privilege."

First, let me throw in a little ad hominem and say that is wrong because you are stupidly driven to follow your own train of thought until the end, in this case, no matter how subjective and self-serving it is.
(see how that works?)

That aside, Bo, if you'd bother to read my posts more thoroughly the first time through, I wouldn't have to repeat myself like this. I'm not sure what your problem is with the classics, but you should find something which sounds less like a conspiracy theory to debunk them with:

If people still enjoy the classics, they still get published. That is why they stick around. There have been countless things that have been considered classics in their own time, but didn't pass the test of providing enjoyment to successive generations. There have, as well, been countless things that were held as classic for centuries, but were later proven to not have the lasting ability to entertain new cultures and peoples, which is what makes a classic in a category of its own. The ability to entertain. So what if you, you, don't think something that is considered classic is worthy of it? I'd be willing to bet countless other people do and have. If it's truly not a classic, and cannot show itself capable to survive the way people change, then it doesn't matter, does it, because it will eventually show itself as such.
I don't really like Thackeray's Vanity Fair. I know several people who love it.
That's the nice thing about it, the variety of things which have accumulated, the highly different ways in which the classics can attend to the variety of humanity's interests. So, I ask again, who cares if you don't like the fact that a book is still around? Someone does, and if they don't then it won't be read, publishers won't make money, and they'll stop printing it.

That's where you really lose me, man, how exactly do you come off saying that it's possible for books to have a monopoly on things? We control it. Yes, there is prestige involved, and f*ckin rightly so, I say. What the hell is so wrong with something being revered for its ability to resonate with us still to this day, even though the earliest of the classics are over three thousand years old?
Of course, Bo, it shouldn't be blind idolatry, and I think you may be confusing the blind idolaters of the classics with the classics themselves.

I mean, if you want to talk hypocrisy, you aren't suspicious of things you do like being held in reverence, but anything you don't like is immediately under suspicion for being revered? Prove to me you have that empathy you cherish so much and look outside of yourself and see that you are not the arbiter of what mankind is attached to, mankind is.
The classics are there because they are still loved, and if they aren't they will be forgotten.
It is a much crueler and unforgiving process than you seem to give it credit for, and that's why it's impressive that people still care.

I don't follow your weird theory of them only being read because they are still published, considering that many things are published and read but not given a second chance because people have no residual interest in them. That is the defining difference, these 'classics' had to be printed once, twice, and three times, and on and on, not because they were always held in this blind reverence you suspect them of, but because people still wanted them enough to warrant the financial risk of printing something -old-.
There's another thing, you say -monopoly-? What?
Monopolies involve money, man, and nothing on the classics shelf sells like modern fiction. It is dangerous in the publishing business to print things that don't make money, and classics don't get sold out of blind reverence alone, and to think so seems to me nothing but hasty.



And do I need another reason not to involve myself in something apart from it not interesting me?
I don't really care about how bookstores arrange themselves, I just want the books, so I don't feel the need to talk about it. The idea of Canon-hood, however, does interest me, so I feel the need to discuss it.
It's not that complicated.

[spoiler]I'd wondered if I should respond the question when I posted that... and decided against it. I had no idea it'd spawn so many Corrections.
Grab the sentence "Classics have stood the test of time because they have been read throughout said time" and glue it on the bottom of my previous post.[/spoiler]