> "A classic is something that persists as a background noise even when the most incompatible momentary concerns are in control of the situation." The article

> "A classic is something that persists as a background noise even when the most incompatible momentary concerns are in control of the situation." The article is more poetic than informational. I am so used to technical readings that I translate the sentences into something more concrete, maybe more journalistic. I guess that this sentence means that "classic books" define our cultural background, differences between the east and the west, between countries and cultures independently of what you can see now on the news. Translating it into more plain concepts allows for a better understanding. With this new wording, I can reflect on how current events, video games, streamed videos are shaping our society and will be identified in the future as "classic". > Every reading of a classic is in fact a rereading. I interpret this as you have already "read" the classic as it is part of other works that you have read or seen. That our culture has been influenced by "classic" works to the extend that you can feel like you have read them before. > The classics are the books that come down to us bearing upon them the traces of readings previous to ours, and bringing in their wake the traces they themselves have left on the culture or cultures they have passed through This confirms my previous interpretation. But, I have then to open the question. Do "classics" shape society or are only a result of it? If a "classics" was never written our society will be different our we will just miss a recorded piece of cultural history? > If the spark doesn’t come, that’s a pity; but we do not read the classics out of duty or respect, but only out of love. I do not agree. I am reading "classics" books out of curiosity or even duty towards being responsible to improve my own education, and last but not least for pleasure. Different people will have different motivation. Can anyone try to explain this other one? It sounds good, but if feels kind of bullshit. :) > We use the word “classic” of a book that takes the form of an equivalent to the universe, on a level with the ancient talismans. With this definition we are approaching the idea of the “total book,” as Mallarmé conceived of it. This post is an interesting read for a change.