The Moretti article mentions the phrase “normal” literature more than once. It says that normal literature is the kind of literature that prevails for about twenty-five to thirty years. I can see how that would make sense. I think an example of “normal” literature in our day and age is the vampire romance genre or the dystopian genre or the apocalyptic genre. These should be considered “normal” based on Moretti’s article because they have been around for a while and probably won’t go away for the next few years.

But what does literature become after it has been “normal” literature?

What term should we use then? “Archaic” or “abnormal”? Something else? A term that is thrown around a lot is “classic.”

“Oh yes, you have to read Pride and Prejudice. It’s a classic!” How many times have you heard a sentence like this, with some other title in the phrase? What does that tell you about the book? Yes, it’s a classic, which could mean that it used to be “normal” literature, but does that mean it’s a good read? No one said that, did they?

I realize I’m asking a lot of questions, so now I’d like to present a couple of small thoughts that could be answers. “Normal” literature does not mean that other genres are “abnormal,” but it just means that it’s not what’s in. It’s not what’s trending. And yes, I do think a good term for the retired “normal” literature would be “classic.” I’m not saying that all literature we consider “classic” was “normal” literature of its time, but I’m sure a lot of it was. That’s why many people read it and many people still read it today. Everyone reads the “normal” literature of the day to fit in with the crowd, and since it was so popular then, it can still be popular now in the form of a “classic.”

Source: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/lorrainedelp/jane-austen/