Literature and Classics: Calvino's take on "Sense of Discovery"

            I find nothing wrong with defining literature in the light of the classics; after all, the classics are the first to come to mind when asked to define literature!  If literature is anything written that is able to carry with it a sort of lasting artist merit, then it would do me well to first attempt to define the phrase "lasting artist merit" as it applies to literature.  Calvino's first definition of "lasting artist merit" would go something like this:

            1.) Anything that, once read, translates or has the potential to translate as "a treasured experience" (Calvino 4). 

Calvino's insistence upon the fact that a second, third, or fourth reading of a piece of good literature--a classic--has the ability to reinvent within the reader the same "sense of discovery" while simultaneously teaching the reader something completely new about his or her self is astounding yet completely true (Calvino 5).  That would have to be my answer for why literature still exists: It has the ability to change us and the ability to change with us, so that we are different people every time we reread it.  That's a powerful thing.  I am of course, as I knew I would, beginning to confuse the definitions of "literature" and "classics."  For the sake of clarity from now on, my use of the word "literature" refers only to "good literature," which goes hand-in-had with the definition of "classics" in my opinion.  

            It was useful, then, to have read Calvino's "Why Read the Classics" prior to trying to formulate for myself a definition of literature.  Calvino and I seem to share the same opinion when it comes to the influence of a classic: it must be interesting and controversial enough to elicit critical discourse, yet outlasting and powerful enough to dismember such opposition.  His words "A classic is a a work which constantly generates a pulviscular cloud of critical discourse around it. but which always shakes the particles off" really stuck with me and brought to mind the question of relevance (Clavino 6).  Classics must be culturally, politically, universally relevant.  That is why I struggle with Calvino's claim that the true defining aspect as to what makes a piece of literature a classic is its ability to "help us understand who we are and the point we have reached..." (Calvino 9).  Does this not make the classification of a true classic entirely subjective? With that being said and as far as Harry Potter goes, Calvino's 11th definition of a classic states : "'Your' classic is a book to which you cannot remain indifferent, and which helps you define yourself in relation or even opposition to it."  All I can say is that I'm glad Calvino made the distinction between "classic" and "your classic."

                                                                             Work Cited

Calvino, Italo. Why read the classics? Trans. Martin McLaughlin. 1981. New York: Vintage

Books.