I found Peter's note that Thomson was an English Classic and always would be
quietly provocative. It made me wonder what we mean by terms like classic,
and if one can have an unread classic? I mean, isn't the term inextricably
linked to continuing large-scale, paying readership (as in, this is largely
an economic fact)? I imagine many classics do actually die quite natural
deaths. And as for notions like "always", I can't think anyone would
seriously contest that at some point in the future our species will die out
and the planet will die; nothing is forever. I'm not knocking Thomson here,
or Peter's claim, I'm just wondering about the context of it.
But is classic status something that the unread can seriously claim or have
bestowed upon them? It's certainly something publishers use to enable
choices for consumers. Or do we mean classic in some historic sense, as in
Thomson was a classic (having had a large sustained readership for a period
of time) and so can be examined in light of this historic status (which has
now largely disappeared), and that this historic position has some
continuing relevance in understanding how he has been superseded? Once a
classic always a classic? I suppose classics can pop in and out of history,
as books do no doubt gather fashionable relevance and potential economic
viability and publishers recognize this and take a gamble (and may also
advocate the text) and in light of this books come back into print and may
find new readerships. But I'm not sure classics are the result of advocacy,
but more the result of a market.
|