Though there are things like Harry Potter that I suspect will become one given time. If my grandkids like then maybe.





I think it matters which modifier you put on it. If you just say literary classic then it needs to be a book that has been in continuous print for an extended length of time (say over 75 years) and is recognized as having literary value.

You can modern classic which would be the best books written in the 20th century and I would say they need to have remained popular for at least 30-40 years. 1984, Hemingway, To Kill a Mocking Bird ect. Again they should have some recognized literary value.

When you start talking genre classics like classic science fiction or classic westerns I think the rules become looser. They should still be relatively old for the genre and they need to be good examples of the style the represented. They don't need to have literary significance but it helps if they were at least nominated for some of the top awards in their genre.

That was pretty much off the top of my head and I am sure their are classics that would fit but it think it is a starting place.



True classics? Not many to be honest. I really think writing has evolved for the better in the last 100 or so years. I like some of the old poetry (which would include Shakespeare) but I really don't find a lot of appeal in Dickens or Dante. Some are interesting stories and they have value but they don't typically read that well.

Now more modern classics. Run Rabbit Run, Brave New World, Slaughter House 5, LotR, To Kill a Mocking Bird. I even liked Tom Sawyer.



The Sound and the Fury, so you can explain it to me.



I would say Little Woman but I read that to my daughter so i will go with Moby Dick.



I tired and it sucked. Long and boring.



There are really only a handful that are truly well read so I wouldn't worry to much.