You are right, this is a very personal list. Not even a recommendation, more like a fact of Calvino's biography. For that reason, it doesn't sit well with how Calvino himself describes classics in your quoted passage.

I largely agree with Calvino's characterization, except that I would probably strike out "individual." Classics are very much a collective canon; "individual classics" is an oxymoron. Nor should classics be idealized as an objective distillation of the best and most important works and authors. What forms the canon is contingent on history, culture and politics. A work that was, perhaps unjustly, overlooked in its time is all the less likely to ever enter the canon (though there are exceptions). On the other hand, the classic status is self-reinforcing, so that once something is enshrined in the canon, only a large cultural or political shift can dislodge it from there.

You mentioned Calvino's bias towards Italian authors. Each culture will have its own version of the literary canon, and if that culture does not lack in great literature, then it is quite understandable that its canon will reflect that. What's more interesting is that even foreign classics vary across cultures, to the point where an author long forgotten in their own land and language culture may be feted as a classic somewhere across the world.

Here is an amusing illustration from Nabokov's novel Pnin, whose eponymous protagonist is a Russian émigré, a middling intellectual who settled in America some time after he fled the Bolshevik revolution:

... he entered a bookstore and asked for Martin Eden.

“Eden, Eden, Eden,” the tall dark lady in charge repeated rapidly, rubbing her forehead. “Let me see, you don’t mean a book on the British statesman? Or do you?”

“I mean,” said Pnin, “a celebrated work by the celebrated American writer Jack London.”

“London, London, London,” said the woman, holding her temples.

Pipe in hand, her husband, a Mr. Tweed, who wrote topical poetry, came to the rescue. After some search he brought from the dusty depths of his not very prosperous store an old edition of The Son of the Wolf.

“I’m afraid,” he said, “that’s all we have by this author.”

“Strange!” said Pnin. “The vicissitudes of celebrity! In Russia, I remember, everybody—little children, full-grown people, doctors, advocates—everybody read and reread him. This is not his best book but O.K., O.K., I will take it.” — Nabokov

If, like Nabokov's sales clerk, you are racking your brain: “London, London, London,” you obviously did not grow up in Russia, where Jack London was regarded as a classic long after he slipped into obscurity in much of the rest of the world, surviving even the Russian revolution and the enormous cultural shifts that it brought. No doubt, London's Socialist sympathies helped him garner an endorsement from the new authorities (while many other authors were suppressed and forgotten), but he was not simply imposed on an unwilling populace: he was genuinely popular. The vicissitudes of celebrity, indeed.

Classics are very much a collective canon; "individual classics" is an oxymoron. — SophistiCat

Exactly.

Perhaps, Calvino did a mix between the collective and the oxymoron. I fully agree with him when he stated the Odyssey as the first-ever classic work. I am aware that there are also other works written in Sumerian, but Homer's works shaped the culture and literature of the world in the next generations.

On the other hand, it is remarkable that he also mentioned a large number of French authors. Although France was the epitome of the 19th century, it is no longer a known country for its literature. I can understand that Balzac is very important, but considering him a classic when his works didn't survive in the 21st century is a bit excessive. I thought that Clavino was very influenced by what was the literature stream of his time. It is strange that he didn't have a look at Asian literature, for instance.

But it is just that, a personal list.

You mentioned Calvino's bias towards Italian authors. Each culture will have its own version of the literary canon — SophistiCat

Absolutely.

But it is a bit unfair that he claimed those works as "classics", and keep in mind that he even called the essay "Why Reading the Classics", meaning that he is inviting us to read them, and it seems that we are missing "something" if we do otherwise.

If a Greek tells me: "Homer is a Classic." I have to agree with him. But I don't know if we could consider Odysséas Elýtis as a classic, although he was an excellent poet and a Nobel laureate.

If a Russian fella tells me: "Dostoevsky's works are Classics". I have to agree with him as well. But, what works of Dostoevsky? Because some of them are unknown to the vast majority of the public.

For that reason, I believe that in terms of writing an essay about the "Classics", we have to leave aside our bias towards our country and culture and try to have a more universal opinion. Again, I think my list of classics would have more works of Japanese and Chinese authors, for instance.

The only thing that I dislike is that it is obvious that he was influenced by Italians due to his nationality, and he did not put other great authors such as Dostoyevsky or Kazantzakis. Nonetheless, the list of Calvino is actually good. — javi2541997

The idea of a “universally agreed upon” classic novel is probably seen as a bit outdated these days. Literary value is filtered through culture, history, and personal taste. What one society or cultural group elevates as timeless genius, another may find tedious, strange, or irrelevant. Hemingway has come in and out of fashion over the past decades, hailed in some quarters for his economical style, but dismissed elsewhere as arid. I find the novels of his I've read arid and dull. Some revere Dostoyevsky for psychological depth, yet to others he is verbose, repetitive and overwrought. I dislike most of Dostoyevsky I have read, except for his mercifully concise The Gambler - an astonishing account of addiction. You can't get away from individual taste.

Many great novelists write about the books they consider outstanding within the world of 'classic literature'. Calvino is operating within a long tradition of this. Somerset Maugham wrote an interesting long essay on this theme called Ten Novels and Their Authors. Maugham was hugely popular and well-reviewed 80–100 years ago but is now almost forgotten. However, he may well be rediscovered in the future.

On the other hand, it is remarkable that he also mentioned a large number of French authors. — javi2541997

Not really. French novels have often been considered masterpieces of world literature, and writers like Voltaire, Balzac, Stendhal, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Maupassant, Proust, and Gide usually appear on those venerable lists of the 'greatest writers' of all time. I have read most of these and would consider them very fine, although Proust does bore me somewhat. :wink:

I find it more bizarre to see an Italian who doesn't include Virgil and the Commedia. It's like leaving out Shakespeare and Milton in English.

The idea of a “universally agreed upon” classic novel is probably seen as a bit outdated these days. Literary value is filtered through culture, history, and personal taste. What one society or cultural group elevates as timeless genius, another may find tedious, strange, or irrelevant. Hemingway has come in and out of fashion over the past decades, hailed in some quarters for his economical style, but dismissed elsewhere as arid. I find the novels of his I've read arid and dull. Some revere Dostoyevsky for psychological depth, yet to others he is verbose, repetitive and overwrought. I dislike most of Dostoyevsky I have read, except for his mercifully concise The Gambler - an astonishing account of addiction. You can't get away from individual taste. — Tom Storm

Well, the idea of a canon was never that it would universally appeal to everyone's tastes, but that they were works of great merit and influence that were a prerequisite for understanding the tradition and culture. Also, they were necessary for enjoying and understanding other parts of the canon; one would miss a lot in Milton or Spenser if all the allusions simply passed over our heads (footnotes help of course, but they can only do so much for dense works like Milton or Dante where the notes are longer than the text itself).

Someone raised on the finely crafted addictive media of Tik Tok, etc. might prefer AI slop or a movie poster over the Mona Lisa or the Pietà, but unless we have already gone down the path of assuming that no art is better than any other, but as Hamlet says, "thinking makes it so," we don't need to allow that both reactions are equally appropriate or ideal. We might say the same thing about a sort of phobia for, or inability to appreciate, natural beauty (e.g., if someone prefers a Walmart parking lot to a Patagonian landscape).

It's not unlike the distinction that is made between prioritizing and preferring gluttony, the physical sexual act, or even sadism, and the good of "being a good" citizen, husband, mother, leader, deacon, doctor, sister, soldier, etc. The idea that there are higher goods that are ultimately more fulfilling doesn't require that everyone currently desire such goods over sadism, gluttony, etc. All that is needed is a distinction between the reality and appearances of desire (or beauty), the potential for individuals to be wrong.

Plus, if one hasn't read long form verse, it will almost certainly be difficult at first. Yet we could easily liken it to learning a new language, learning to ride a bike, etc. It can be painful and require motivation, yet it might be worth doing, or even positively educating.

But I'd argue that there is a pragmatic, philosophical element to the canon as well. It isn't just their literary merit that is championed but their ability to:

A. Help us understand where our current ideas come from (I think that it's quite ironic that in an age where historicism and social constructivism are so dominant we are arguably more historically myopic than ever vis-á-vis the history of our own ideas. To not understand the origins of one's ideas is to be ruled over by past. Simply being unaware of an influence doesn't free one from it. Anscombe on the relationship between Reformation theology and secular (or even athiest) ethics is a fine example here.)

B. Create a common language that helps support civilization, including the arts. A total balkanization of culture makes the sort of allusions that are so central to much literature (and philosophy) impossible. It's a sort of Tower of Babel type scenario. Sharing a functional "language" is arguably not enough to support culture.

Re the understanding of ideas, there is this prescient part of C.S. Lewis' lectures in medieval and renaissance literature where he sort of summarizes the broad outlines of Kuhn's point re paradigms (what Lewis calls a "backcloth"). He even lays out the notion of "saving appearances" and underdetermination—the way observation is fit into a paradigm until it is abandoned.

This understanding of how beliefs fit together and are constructed from culture springs organically from a comparison of the ancient, medieval, and early-modern ways of crafting literature more than anything else, and at the very least this source of the insight furnished him with all sorts of interesting, palpable examples to make his case.

He also makes an interesting point about the idea that the medieval cosmological model wasn't always taken "scientifically" but more symbolically. Scientists speculated about it, but it was primarily used in literature. Theologians and philosophers largely ignored it (or decried parts, like astrology), or used it as mere metaphor. This is in some ways the reverse of how the relationship works today, which is an interesting twist.

The idea of a “universally agreed upon” classic novel is probably seen as a bit outdated these days. — Tom Storm

I agree. :up:

Literary value is filtered through culture, history, and personal taste. — Tom Storm

True. But I believe that Calvino was more influenced by his personal taste than culture and history. This is why I dislike his bias towards Italian authors. Honestly, I didn't know most of them. Furthermore, I think that he missed important authors from Asia and Oceania. He started with good points on Greek literature because it is obvious that they shaped our thoughts and our opinion on culture. Yet, this even depends on what kind of culture we are talking about. I bet Asian students consider "Classics" the haiku and Samurai stories rather than Balzac.

I dislike most of Dostoyevsky I have read, except for his mercifully concise The Gambler - — Tom Storm

I also enjoyed The Gambler a lot! Why didn't you enjoy the rest of Dostoevsky's works? You are free to dislike it, but since I am a very big fan of him, I am here if you want to discuss something about him or his novels.

Not really. French novels have often been considered masterpieces of world literature, and writers like Voltaire, Balzac, Stendhal, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Maupassant, Proust, and Gide usually appear on those venerable lists of the 'greatest writers' of all time. I have read most of these and would consider them very fine, although Proust does bore me somewhat. — Tom Storm

I can't disagree with that. I understand that French writers had an important influence on most modern authors. Nonetheless, I still think that they are no longer that important. It appeared in other styles and authors, which can illustrate the modern readers. If you look closely at his list, it is obvious that it is very European, not to mention that he avoided important authors in Spanish. One French author is OK, but he seemed obsessed with them.

I find it more bizarre to see an Italian who doesn't include Virgil and the Commedia. It's like leaving out Shakespeare and Milton in English. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I thought the same. I believe he didn't add that since it would be too evident given that he is Italian. However, he made sure to mention his fellow (Italian) writers.

I tried to track down the essay, because Calvino doesn't seem the type to give lists, at least not to set them as authoritive or exclusive or anything like that. I found only version of the essay, which didn't have the list. I found it multiple times; here's one from Penguin books:

Why Read the Classics

You seem to have misquoted the first line, unless it's different in the version you read (which is very possible): it's "'I'm rereading...', never 'I'm reading...'". This is more in line with what I would have expected. I also think the tone here is one of irony. Calvino almost certainly doesn't rule out hearing "I'm reading..." with respect to a classic.

Also, the entire essay seems to waver between the tension point of cultural and personal impact. I've only skimmed the essay so far, but I quite like it. My favourite example comes from near the end:

13. A classic is a work which relegates the noise of the present to a background hum, which at the same time the classics cannot exist without.

14. A classic is a work which persists as background noise even when a present that is totally incompatible with it holds sway.

That's just so brilliant!

There's a sense with classics, that the difference between a rist read and a re-read collapses: we've absorbed the classic so that it's always already familiar, but it's also always not quite what we expect (and that seems to hold to true even if we've actually read the book before). The essay seems to be about that; at least that's my initial reading.

I'll read it in full when I have more time (given that I only skimmed it, would that be a re-reading? Hm....)

Reading this thread, I'd say: the classics are books which inspire arguments whether they should be on a list or not. (Harold Bloom made a long one, and I'm fairly certain he was more serious about it than Calvino.)

"'I'm rereading...', never 'I'm reading...'" — Dawnstorm

This is true. Sorry for my mistake.

Edit: I just corrected it.

I liked the essay; for one thing, it provided another word for my list of words rarely used in English -- pulviscular, "dusty or resembling a fine powder". Google's AI referenced a Calvino essay.

Might "a classic" just be called "a great book"?

Each of his several definitions of "classic" will satisfy some people, leave other people indifferent or annoyed.

#5. "A classic is a book which even when we read it for the first time gives the sense of rereading something we have read before."

I like that. Several excellent history books I've read or am reading, from "The British are Coming" to Stephen Greenblatt's "Dark Renaissance: The Dangerous Times and Fatal Genius of Shakespeare's Greatest Rival" (just published 9/9/25) fulfill definition #5. They summon memories from college reading and lectures not thought about for decades; they tie together bits and pieces of readings about the topic; they extend insights, etc. Greenblatt's grim description of 16th Century English society (burnings, hangings, disembowelments, poverty, filth, the rigid exclusion of the many from any prospect of advancement (which is why Chistopher Marlowe, son of a poor shoemaker, is so exceptional), are stuff I haven't thought about since English major days in the 1960s.

A classic reinvigorates one's thinking on a topic. So, The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777 by Rick Atkinson has reinvigorated my thinking about what the American Revolution was really like -- how grotesque at times, how bloody, how savage, how dicey, how good luck or bad luck figured into so many events. I also have a better understanding of why the British didn't want to lose the colonies -- they were terrific money makers for Britain's ruling class.

I would nominate 15th century Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as a Classic I have re-read and enjoy studying, and Samuel Pepys diary 17th century diary. Both are fun reads worth returning to. I'd count John Skelton's 16th century work too -- like the Tunning of Eleanor Rumming. Not a pretty lady she.

Her lothely lere
Is nothynge clere,
But ugly of chere,
Droupy and drowsy,
Scurvy and lowsy;
Her face all bowsy,
Comely crynkled,
Woundersly wrynkled,
Lyke a rost pygges eare,
Brystled wyth here.

Wondrously wrinkled like a roasted pig's ear, bristled with hair! Maybe not Milton, but I haven't read Milton in a long time. Classic? Sure.

Did you ever read any of these? — javi2541997

Only the Odyssey and parts of the Iliad; Metamorphosis, Candide; several Dickens, Mark Twain, Henry James, Dr Zhivago by Pasternak. None of the rest; I've never liked Hemingway. I read Don Quixote, once upon a time.

There are too many great books for anyone to have read more than a small fraction. Life is short and there is only so much time to delve into more than a few. And that doesn't include very significant books which would not be a wonderful read--like Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe.

I'd consider Dune a classic; I've reread it several times, and of course the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most science fiction doesn't rate "classic" to me because normally I do not reread them, unless I had forgotten that I had read it before. Sort of like movies you don't remember you have already seen until... half way through.

What about individual poems -- can they be classics along side novels? I think so. John Donne (15th/16th century) wrote wrote a number of poems like that. So did Shakespeare; so did a lot of poets.

Then there are musical classics -- from far past up to yesterday. A lot of music falls well short of "classic" in the sense that nobody has been interested in it for maybe 500 years or since it fell off the current hit charts.

. One French author is OK, but he seemed obsessed with them. — javi2541997

But picking great works is not a quota-based activity. My list would probably have more French writers than any others too. These are the books he has chosen as his pick of the classics.

If you look closely at his list, it is obvious that it is very European, not to mention that he avoided important authors in Spanish. — javi2541997

Yes, but isn’t that the point? If he were an American, there would be Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Bellow, Melville, Whitman; all exceptional. In fact, one could probably make a list like this composed entirely of Americans.

No doubt, London's Socialist sympathies helped him garner an endorsement from the new authorities (while many other authors were suppressed and forgotten), but he was not simply imposed on an unwilling populace: he was genuinely popular. The vicissitudes of celebrity, indeed. — SophistiCat

Yes, although I think the point with London (whose short stories are pretty good and still often taught in schools) is that he was a sloppy or uneven writer who produced about 50 books in just 17 years. He wrote quickly and for mass sales, not as a literary craftsman. His English was never as elegant and literary as contemporaries like Conrad or Wharton or James.

I can't disagree with that. I understand that French writers had an important influence on most modern authors. Nonetheless, I still think that they are no longer that important. — javi2541997

It’s not just that French authors were influential, it’s that some of the greatest novels in the fabled canon are French. I often return to Flaubert and Stendhal. And many would argue that Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu remains one of (perhaps the greatest) works of all time.

As an Australian, I would include Patrick White in my list; probably Voss.

Might "a classic" just be called "a great book"? — BC

That is what I think, yes. At least it is more accurate than call them "Classics"

#5. "A classic is a book which even when we read it for the first time gives the sense of rereading something we have read before."

I like that. — BC

I also like that definition. In my edition it is located in the 2nd place, not the 5th; it was very important to him to reread some works. I wonder if he read them for pleasure or to help him become a better writer. We can't really know; Calvino was a bit ambiguous in this essay.

I've never liked Hemingway. — BC

Neither do I.

I read Don Quixote, once upon a time. — BC

Surprisingly, Calvino did not include Don Quixote in his list. He just mentioned "Tirant lo Blanch", an epic poem very similar to Cid. I mean, of course these are important and excellent books of my country, but putting them above Don Quixote... Wow! That was kind of excessive.

What about individual poems -- can they be classics along side novels? — BC

I think so, too.

There are poems which deserve to be regarded as classics, and I think that some are better than the books on Calvino's list. But I do not want to criticize him for this, because it is true that he focused on prose, not on poetry.

Honestly, if I were called to do a list of classic poets and poems, I would put haiku poets for sure, even though I understand that haiku are very ambiguous and they are hard to understand for Western readers. Then I am aware that doing a list of classics is a very serious task, not exempt from controversy.

Yes, but isn’t that the point? If he were an American, there would be Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Bellow, Melville, Whitman; all exceptional. In fact, one could probably make a list like this composed entirely of Americans. — Tom Storm

Tom, I guess I found the solution: why not write a list of classics of each country? :smile:

In 1625, Francis Bacon famously wrote, "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". In order to be a well rounded man, one needs to read, engage in conversation (speaking and listening) and in writing.

I would emphasize practice: One needs to write, receive criticism, and judge one's own work, again and again, If one doesn't read and converse, what would one have to say? Well, there is one's experience to write about, or one's imagination to spill out in ink, but that should be informed by reading and conversation.

Here's a poem I think is "classic" by John Donne, poet, scholar, soldier secretary and priest. It partakes of the routine misogamy and double-standard of his time (16/17th century), but what's true for a woman is/was even more true for a man.

Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
And find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me,
All strange wonders that befell thee,
And swear,
No where
Lives a woman true, and fair.

If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.

George Herbert's Love III is another classic from around 1630.

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.

A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

It's about God's love and I won't quote any more 17th century poetry for a while.

Surprisingly, Calvino did not include Don Quixote in his list. He just mentioned "Tirant lo Blanch", an epic poem very similar to Cid. I mean, of course these are important and excellent books of my country, but putting them above Don Quixote... Wow! That was kind of excessive. — javi2541997

Mentioning something and not something else is "putting one above the other"? Why? You write an essay and mention what comes to mind to fit the flow of your point. One could argue that it's not necessary to mention Don Quixote, because everone knows it anyway.

I can't remember not knowing about Don Quixote (though I definitely heard about the book for the first time at some point). I saw a pretty good Spanish cartoon series as a kid - I later read the book (both part one and two) and found the cartoon surprisingly accurate, actually. I really liked part one. Part two I liked considerably less - it had its high-points but it felt like a... bitter repsonse to being misunderstood by the fan fiction writers of his day and... more impactfully by the Catholic church. You wade through quite a bit of that in part two.

I tried to find out what the point of the list is, but none of the versions I could find have it. (You say the essay is from 1981, and the versions I find - if the penguin page can be trusted - is from 1986 - 5 years later. Written later? Published later? Date of the translation? I just don't know.)

I mean, I go over the list and it's often not the well-known books he menitons (Robert Louis Stevenson - The Pavillion on the Links? Dickens - Our Mutual Friend?). It's like he's encouraging you to go beyond the well-known and figure out your own canon. I doubt it's about consulting a list for the most classic of classics. That doesn't sound like what I know about Calvino (which isn't much; haven't even read If on a Winter's Night a Traveller..., though it's been on my list forever now.

I think we are interpreting Calvino's essay differently. It is not a problem since literature is open to interpretation and criticism. For this reason, I still argue that it is surprising how Calvino skipped or missed very important authors, and he was biased with Italian writers. It would not be a problem if he would have called his work "my favourite books of all time" or "my top list of books I always enjoyed" etc.

But his essay is called "Why Reading the Classics". It means – at least to me – that he is inviting us to read them because those works are the epitome of literature, and we would miss important knowledge on literature if we did otherwise. I am not against his personal list. I just disagree with how he overreacted to those books and authors.

On the other hand, I disagree that Don Quixote is not necessary to be mentioned in his essay because it is already known by the vast majority. According to that point, he wouldn't have mentioned Odyssey as well, when this is another important and recognised work of literature.

It's like he's encouraging you to go beyond the well-known and figure out your own canon. — Dawnstorm

It might be.

I think we are interpreting Calvino's essay differently. — javi2541997

Before that, I think we're reading different versions of the essay. The online-version I linked above has been published in the New York Review on October 9, 1986. None of the online-reprints I've seen had the list. It's very likely that the article itself (the one in the NYR) is a reprint and translation. Is the version you've read older or younger?

For example:

For this reason, I still argue that it is surprising how Calvino skipped or missed very important authors, and he was biased with Italian writers. — javi2541997

In the version I've read he barely mentions any Italians (as far as I can tell), and there's this line:

"I notice that Leopardi is the only name from Italian literature that I have cited. This is the effect of the disintegration of the library. Now I ought to rewrite the whole article making it quite clear that the classics help us understand who we are and the point we have reached, and that consequently Italian classics are indispensable to us Italians in order to compare them with foreign classics, and foreign classics are equally indispensable so that we can measure them against Italian classics." (Above link)

"Us Italians" gives away the target audience (so it's likely a reprint; this reads differently to American audiences, no?).

So now there's a bias towards Italians? Maybe he actually did re-write the essay? (It could still be older.)

There's a lot I can't say, because there's a lot I don't know. See? For example, I don't know how he framed the list you gave us. It's entirely possible that I'd agree with you. (I'm speculating that I won't, mostly based on the impression I have of Calvino, but that's neither here nor there. I know too little about Calvino.)

This, though:

For this reason, I still argue that it is surprising how Calvino skipped or missed very important authors — javi2541997

It's inevitable that a short informal essay skips lots of very important authors. There are just too many. Bias is inevitable, and I don't think eliminating bias is even something one should attempt. Especially not in an article that wavers between social and personal, like this one.

I definitely agree that Don Quixote is one of the most important pieces of world literature; there's no way around this. But if everyone should say this whenever the topic comes up than I'd say:

A classic is a book you grow tired of by overexposure, long before you even see a copy.

It's the flipside of classics that Calvino doesn't mention, probably because he'd want me to read them. For example, two of the most important classics in 20th Century dystopian novels are 1984 and Brave New World. I've read Brave New World, but I haven't read 1984. Yet, I have this irrational and likely completely wrong feeling that I'm more familiar with 1984, mostly because people talk about it more. It gets more adaptions (in film, rock music and videogames...). And so on. If I read 1984, I'd probably enjoy it and find new things about it (things that stand out to me more than to others most likely). But I'm just not motivated to read it, because it's just being talked to death. And I even own a copy. And I even have the time.

It's all really weird.

On the other hand, I disagree that Don Quixote is not necessary to be mentioned in his essay because it is already known by the vast majority. According to that point, he wouldn't have mentioned Odyssey as well, when this is another important and recognised work of literature. — javi2541997

Yeah, well. What I said here doesn't work very well as an argument. And, yeah, there are plenty of well-known works in the list, too. And I hope you don't think I'm denigrating Don Quixote. It's no doubt one of the most important pieces of world literature out there in terms of influence - spreading both into pop culture and academic circles. And I also found it a great read (though I read a German translation, me not speaking Spanish).

Is the version you've read older or younger? — Dawnstorm

It is younger. It was written between 1979 and 1981.

There's a lot I can't say, because there's a lot I don't know. See? For example, I don't know how he framed the list you gave us. — Dawnstorm

Neither do I.

I do not have a big problem with his list nor the way he framed it. He was free to write about important books, and, according to the introduction, it seemed that those books were classics to him because they helped him to become a writer and a man of arts.

Nonetheless, I disagree (at least with the version I have) with how he overreacted. Because, as I said, he named his work "Why Reading the Classics". This means to me that he was inviting us into his canon of literature or aesthetics. I am grateful for that; but I think that I would have disagreed with him if I had had the opportunity to discuss his work with him.

Bias is inevitable, and I don't think eliminating bias is even something one should attempt. Especially not in an article that wavers between social and personal, like this one. — Dawnstorm

I agree.

Then, since bias is inevitable, I think he should have named his essay in a different manner. I repeat that the list is actually good, and I understand why he chose those books over others. Yet, I think that Calvino must have said that the list was a personal project rather than being objective.

And I hope you don't think I'm denigrating Don Quixote — Dawnstorm

German translation — Dawnstorm

No, no. I haven't thought of that while debating with you. Au contraire I believe you respect Don Quixote.
--------------
So, you are German or from Austria. Look at Calvino's list again then. He didn't mention any relevant work of your language, such as "The Nibelungenlied" or Rilke's poetry. When there is too many to name.

Rose, o pure contradiction, desire
to be no one's sleep beneath so many
lids.

- Rilke. :flower: :sparkle:

Classics is a diverse and multidisciplinary degree – you’ll be covering the languages, literatures, history, and philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome. Graduates have a reputation for being intelligent, analytical, and articulate. ...[snip]...

What you could study

Latin language
Greek language
Greek drama: tragedy and comedy
The ancient novel
Metamorphosis
Iliad
Aeneid
Sculpture
Ancient Greek philosophy: the pre-Socratic to Aristotle, and beyond
Greek and Roman mythology

https://www.ucas.com/explore/subjects/classics

Just sayin'...