The Criteria of a Classic

When I first read the question asking for the required criteria to make a book a classic, I had to think long and hard about the common factors I saw in the “classics” that I had read. Most people would probably callTreasure Island a classic, and as different as it is in style and writing, The Lord of the Rings would also be a classic. I eventually came to realize that it is the books’ representation of a culture or genre, how they stood out from similar writings and their understanding on human nature that gave them lasting appeal and made them classics.

“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” stands out as possibly the greatest piece of abolitionist writing ever. It certainly proved to be the most influential. It’s been said that when President Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he called her the little woman who started the big war. There were certainly other abolitionist writings written in the same era, some more well-written than others. However, it stands as a good representation of the genre and what those writings were trying to accomplish through being an influential read.

But while audience response is a very important factor in determining which books become classics, the quality of the book itself is also important. It cannot at all be a generic or common story; there must be something new and very memorable about it. I think that it would be fair to say that every classic out there should be a book the reader never forgets about. Even if the reader dislikes it, it should stick out in the mind when the reader is looking back on significant books that he or she has read. I can recall books that I have read like The Old Man and the Sea which I honestly did not think were truly great books, but they stand out in my mind. It might be the story, the characters, or the style.

Finally, the great classics have stood the test of time, and a factor that the great classics have that enables them to do this is an analysis of human nature. This past semester, I read Frankenstein and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Both are drastically different stories to be certain, but contain critiques on the study of human nature. Frankenstein upholds the idea that man is a Tabula Rosa, while Connecticut Yankeeholds to the idea that man is prone to foolishness and needs a guide to being better. While I am not saying that both present the clear truth, they both address an issue that man has wrestled over for millennia. Thus, they have a lasting appeal to the people of today.
People may find classics that they actually dislike, like I did with The Old Man and the Sea. They may find it boring, heretical or simply not their style. But if one considers the quality of the book, cultural impact and lasting appeal due to relevant exploration, it becomes easier.

Inheritance: An analysis

In the wake of The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, much interest has been turned to other fantasy books, and the genre is once again being taken seriously. If there are three kings of Fantasy, it would doubtless be Tolkien's Middle Earth, Rowling's Harry Potter, and Lewis's Narnian Chronicles. However, right below the trio here is another book that has gotten recent acclaim: Chris Paolini's Inheritance Epic (though currently, only the first two books, Eragon and Eldest, have been released).

This is less of a review of the books, and more of an analysis on the message that they convey, particularly those of book 2. Real briefly though, are the books well written? Yes, they're not bad. It's evident the author is young, and it shows. The plot isn't bad, though the first one reeks of Star Wars. You've all heard this before. However, I want to talk about the worldview the books express. Like the Harry Potter books, they are a classic example of a secular humanistic worldview, but rarely do books get this blatant and (dare I say it) preachy.

The first book deals with Eragon meeting Saphira, the last dragon, and learning of his destiny to challenge the evil king, Galbatorix. This book, I will leave mostly alone. It has talk of magic though it's fairly mechanical and has no great spiritual overtones. Nevertheless, we first see an example of the spiritual world. Orik and Arya, the dwarf warrior and elven princess in the story, are arguing over the validity of the Dwarven gods. Orik says that sacrifices must be made to them to appease them and becomes indignant when Arya questions it, saying that the gold would better be spent on the poor and regarding the Dwarven gods as hogwash. Book 1 ends the spirituality discussion on that note.
Book 2 gets much more interesting. Here, Eragon begins training and learns that Galbatorix has two more dragon eggs. The first hint of the the worldview comes when Eragon's master, Oreius, questions Eragon on his motivation for fighting. He tells Eragon that the evil king Galbatorix's citizens live mostly productive lives. A war would cause more damage than if Eragon let him live on ruling the kingdom. At first Eragon is confused thinking to himself “Galbatorix was evil…He knew that he was in the right, but how could he prove it?” (Paolini, 351). He later comes back to Oreius and tells him his motives. Basically, Eragon fights because Galbatorix is immortal and won't die, telling Oreius that he kills more in a hundred years than “we could in single generation” and he would kill or enslave elves and dwarves and that “rescueing the two eggs from Galbatoris is the only way to save the dragons.” He tells him the fight is worth it “though thousands may die” (Paolini, 373-374).
Translation? Morals have nothing to do with it. Why should they? There are no morals without a governing power ordaining them. The mentality here is that it's overall the better choice for society. Eragon is more of a social worker and less of a moralist hero.

I mentioned a bit earlier that book 2 is preachy at times. Perhaps that was harsh, but I have an excerpt below. The conversation takes place between Eragon the apprentice and his master Oreius.
“Who do you worship?”
“Nothing”
“Where do you think the world came from then if it wasn't created by the gods?”
“Which gods Eragon?”
“Your gods, the dwarf gods, our gods…someone must have created it.”
“I cannot prove that gods do not exist. Nor can I prove that the world and everything in it was not created by an entity or entities in the distant past. If gods exist, have they been good custodians of Alegaesia? Death sickness, poverty, tyranny, and countless other miseries stalk the land. If this is the handiwork of divine beings, then they are to be rebelled against and overthrown, not given obeisance, obedience, and reference.”
“The dwarves believe–”
“Exactly! The dwarves believe. When it comes to certain matters, they rely upon faith rather than reason. They have even been known to ignore proven facts that contradict their dogma.” (Oreius goes on to give an example of science winning against religious dogma. He continues)
“We give credence only to that which we can prove exists.”
“It seems a cold world without something…more.”
“On the contrary, said oromis, it is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our own actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment. I won't tell you what to believe Eragon, it is far better to be taught to think criticaly and then be allowed to make your own decisions than to have someone else's notions thrust upon you. You have asked for our religion, and I have answerd you true. Make of it what you will” (Paolini, 542-543).

It's all there: atheism, a contempt for religion, an assertion that “faith” and “reason” are not congruous, and perhaps greatest of all, a disdain for any God that is ruling a fallen sinful world. This last one is of especial interest to me: “they are to be rebelled against and overthrown”. Not much analysis needed here. It sounds almost like a quote from Phillip Pullman, the author of the His Dark Materials Trilogy, but that review will come later. Maybe Paolini is not actually advocating this view. Maybe it is just this one character's view. However, the fact that he's an elf (who seem to be the wisest in the story) and the fact that he is Eragon's teacher and correcting him of many false beliefs tells me that this more of the author's message to the audience. Then again, maybe this is just my analysis. Make of it what you will.

I feel this is less of a review and more of a show of what Paolini has to offer in terms of his worldview. I found the books an interesting read, but I was disturbed by the messages within. Eragon is a model humanist. He fights for the general welfare, not for morality, and his teacher shows him how the gods he believes in are frauds, or for that matter, any god whatsoever should be rebelled against. I could make a comparison here to a certain figure in history I'm thinking of, but I will rather compare it to Tolkien's mythology where Melkor rebels against the all-powerful Illuvitar, feeling that his creation can be better. I feel that Oreius would have joined Melkor.

So what does this mean? The Inheritance books are some genuinely fun fantasy. I don't think that they are as original or engaging as Rowling's Potter books, though they have a slightly more advanced reading level. I tip my hat off to Chris Paolini for writing a novel at age fifteen which is quite a feet and more than I've ever done. However, I can hardly recommend his books on the basis of the secular views that predominate the books. Does that mean that parents shouldn't let their children read them? That's for the parents to decide. However, most certainly parents should make their children aware of the meaning the books contain

Tolkien's Rebirth: A review of Children of Húrin

Four out of five stars

It is currently the #2 best selling book on Amazon.com second only to Harry Potter 7. Released 34 years after his death, J. R. R. Tolkien's Children of Húrin (beautifully illustrated by Alan Lee) is still a powerful tale. Tolkien's son, Christopher Tolkien, finished a story his father started that takes place 5,000 years before the time of Frodo. The story is also told in The Silmarillion, a work that Tolkien was working on shortly before his death but never got a chance to finish. In the preface of Children, Christopher says that there were three tales his father had always wanted told in full: Beren and Luthien (mentioned in The Lord of the Rings), the Fall of Gondolin, and the Children of Húrin. Tolkien wrote The Children of Hurin but never got around to revising it for publishing. Christopher has said that he only put in a transition here and there, wanting this to be a basically untouched version of his father's works. As some know, I have been awaiting this book a long while, and I have finally been able to read it and share my thoughts.

The story tells of Túrin, the son of Húrin. Sauron is merely a lieutenant and is hardly mentioned in the story, but Morgoth has an iron fist on all of middle earth. When Húrin is captured in the battle of unnumbered tears, nine year old Túrin leaves his pregnant mother to go to the elven kingdom of Doriath to dwell with King Thingol and his queen Melian (a maiar spirit). Túrin grows up in the kingdom as the king's foster-son and eventually leaves to fight among the outlaws against Morgoth. Little does Túrin know that Morgoth has cursed his whole family, and that the dragon Glaurung is determined to destroy all of the children of Húrin.
First of all, let me say what this book is not. This book is not written for the same audience as The Hobbit. It is not for the same audience as The Lord of the Rings. This is written for people who read The Lord of the Rings, come across the phrase “Beren and Luthien” and think to themselves “I wonder who they were.” As a reader of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Book of Lost Tales, Unfinished Tales and various writings on the elvish languages, I am part of the audience to which this book is directed, so keep that in mind for this review.

The story here is truly amazing, and very tragic. If The Lord of the Rings is the original Star Wars trilogy, then this is Episode III. People die, romances are torn, and evil often prevails. The story is one of the big elements that sticks with you. It is unpredictable, and I don't mean in an “Oh, I totally thought that wouldn't happen” sort of way. I mean you just don't suspect it. It plays like real life. If an event seems inevitable, it often plays out that way. However, unpredictable events occur that are often like those of real life. In war, not every brave soldier dies charging down the battle field in slow motion. Many courageous soldiers die unexpectedly by strange circumstances, and that's the situation here. Battles and fights aren't just thrown in, yet everything has a point and a reason—a cause and an effect.

Perhaps Tolkien's greatest strength that shows throughout all of his books is the ability to develop characters through actions. People today feel that a character has to change in order to be developed. They say that the trial make the person. I disagree. I say the trial reveals the person more often than not. Túrin is brave, compassionate, and prideful. When he faces trials, those attributes display themselves and dictate what happens. This is why the characters all seem both epic and real. The character of Beleg, Túrin's teacher, is a terrific example. When Túrin tells him to stay with him in the wilderness and fight Morgoth as a rogue, Beleg initially refuses. However, Beleg returns unexpectedly yielding to “love against his wisdom” (Tolkien, 139). These are the moments that make the book memorable. They show that actions reveal the person inside.

A note must be made of the “morals” of the story. By reading on the internet, I could tell that many were concerned about the content. Murder, betrayal, suicide, and incest all reside within this story. However, I feel that the views on these elements are more important. All of these are shown in their proper light. In other words, when one of the main characters commits suicide, it is shown as one of the great evils just as it should be.

Now to the bad part of the book—namely, the editing. Not that the book is bad, but it can't be denied that it's just not up to the writing quality that The Lord of the Rings is. Some parts flow very well, some are beautifully written, and some obviously needed more work. Do I wish that Christopher Tolkien had done more revision? Not really. The Silmarillion is infamous for it's amazingly slow beginning, most of which Christopher wrote. While it's not really bad writing, and a lot of it is very good, it is problematic enough that someone who had never read Tolkien could not just jump into this book like he or she could The Hobbit.

With all of that said, I personally loved the book (although it will be more of a mixed bag for some people). The odd editing prevents it from being as great as it might have been, and it is unfortunate that Tolkien never got to see it come to fruition the way he wanted. However, it is infinitely better than the account in The Silmarillion (which tells the same story but in a more “this once happened” form). The characters are fascinating, and the story will intrigue fans of epic tales such as Beowulf and Homer's Illiad. In other words, for those who are looking for an easy read, they should look elsewhere, but for those who are searching for more treasure in Tolkien's middle earth, this is a true jewel.
Tolkien, John. The Children of Húrin. Boston - New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007.