What makes a classic?

[jack]

On wednesday, I watched "True Lies", perhaps the best film in which Schwartzneger plays a human :) It's got a good mix of action, sex, and pretty funny too.

I've also just re-read Niven/Pournelle's "Moat around Murchurson's Eye". In many ways it's got everything a good science fiction book should. Some of the best aliens I've ever read. Lots of action. Science pretty realistic + two necessary innovations (shields and wormholes) which are consistent. Fun characters, including a Muslim ex-potential-terrorist (which is suddenly a much hotter topic now...).

I enjoyed both, and would recommend them without hesitation, but somehow I wouldn't describe either as a classic, in the way I would LOTR, Dune, Star Wars. And I'm not sure why. It's like they did everything right, but were just a perfection of themes found in other things, and not genuinely new. But then you could say the same for starwars. Do you have to create a genre to be a classic? That seems a bit stringent. What other works fit this pattern?

Comments

[mair_in_grenderich]

don't you have to (a) be quotable and (b) make people think - I think that's what it means by doing something new. Not that the plot is new necessarily, but that it stimulates new thoughts in you. oh and maybe (c) be rereadable, so stimulating on rereads too.