Why are some books considered true literature or classics, while others aren't?

Hey people! I've been wondering about this for such a long time. Why are some books considered literature, or masterpieces, while others or not? For example, some literary masterpieces are To Kill a Mockingbird, anything by Jane Austen, Wuthering Heights, etc. Why are these books considered literature as opposed to let's say, Harry Potter. (I'm not going to say twilight, because that's obvious). What makes a book a classic or true literature?Why are some books considered true literature or classics, while others aren't?
A classic is defined by its ability to captivate readers during or past the period it was written. These books deal with situations, emotions or ideas that are able to appeal to very diverse groups of individuals. Classics tend to establish a basis upon which future literature is written, they contain unique and original archetypes, plots and characters. Selecting which books are classics and which aren't is based on peoples cultural ideologies and therefore they are subject to change. The reason why I feel that the classics are essential is because they provide perspectives outside of a readers bias and time period.Why are some books considered true literature or classics, while others aren't?
Some books are considered masterpieces because of the message that they convey and how powerful that message is. A book is considered a true classic after it has withstood the tests of time. We still read Romeo and Juliet today because the message is still true and people still enjoy reading it after hundreds of years. Harry Potter may be considered a classic some time, but not for a while because it is still considered new. If in about 50-60 years Harry Potter is still around and children are still reading it, it will be considered a classic.
I think that true literature is a book that can withstand the test of time. It does not matter the popularity of the book (ie. HP, Twilight) but is more so the quality of the writing and the ideas the book circle around, even perhaps the lessons learned. To Kill a Mockingbird is an OLD book but is still enjoyed today, and by people of ALL ages, children (I read this in grade 5) and adults. Whereas something like Harry Potter, is it really that great? Sure, it's a good fun read but does the book really MEAN anything? No. Plus, it's full of plotholes and is completely predictable. And seems like it was written in a rush for the money, it doesn't really have any soul.
I totally agree!! There are some amazing books that aren't called classics, and most of the classics I know aren't as good as other book!





Take Lord Of The Rings, for example - that has ';withstood the test of time'; yet isn't actually referred to as a classic.


I think its just books that aren't written kinda in modern English, like Shakespeare's stuff is considered a classic, same as books like Jane Austen's Pride And Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and the Bronte sisters works too. Maybe thats why LOTR isn't a classic, because it was written around the same time (I think?) but its all about magical creatures and wizards and orcs.





All in all, I think it would depend on your frame of reference. I wouldn't consider stuff like Wuthering Heights a classic in MY own opinion, but I'm a teenage girl. Of course I refer to them as classics because thats what everyone knows them as. But my ';classics list'; is basically my favourite books - ones that have a powerful message, or that you can just read again and again.





Mani xx
I would say its prose, the fact that people are still talking about it 30-100 years later. The invoked emotion and thought into characters, setting, and the reader him/her self.





Standing up to the test of time. Harry Potter will be, I honestly don't see those fading away. I know all the fans of it will be reading it to there kids and those kids most likely will read it to theres and so on. That would then become Classic Children Literature.