I figured that certain stories will retain relevance, given the accessibility it has, or its being common to the ‘human condition.’ However, this too I feel is contingent to attitudes and/or preferences of humans/societies over time.

I don’t have to chops to compare literary traditions of even just the major civilizations and find the ‘common’ stories and how they’re valued across time (i.e. are contemporary works within the particular tradition still use the typical story and become successful?). Then we could cross reference the literary traditions with each other, to check for ‘universality.’

It’s an exercise for academics, I’m aftraid — but it might have been already done, who knows?

I would agree with contesting the notion that something is "essentially" good, or further, the idea that anything is "essentially" anything. "Essential" is yet another subjective attribute on a list of many.

I'm not really sure that we're actually disagreeing on anything here, actually. XD

Also, I shared your post to cuchlann of superfani blog (I post there too on occasion), and he agreed to let me quote him (he feels that he's being too vitriolic about his opinion, while I think he's just being nice). In any case, he's given voice to some of what I'm struggling with:

"I have a problem with the idea that something is "essentially" good. It's a common logical fallacy — I've heard it a few times in the guise of "But I'm not a C student."

Strangely, though, I do believe in skill being (relatively) inherent. Shakespeare, for instance, is very well done, I don't think that is a fact that will change over time. Shakespeare's supposed "timelessness," on the other hand, is one part canonical support and one part writing on topics that probably won't go out of style — like sex, revenge, and parent issues.

I'm not quite sure where the post is going… That old animation is still good animation? Sure. I don't see this as much of an arguable issue, like a student last semester who argued violence against women is wrong. I'm left saying, "Yes… and?"

I also personally think the argument about "timelessness" is useless. I don't really care if X show/book/movie will be popular in fifty years, or a hundred years. I also don't think that's a good judge of quality (someone tried to use that argument on me concerning Salinger; I assume he was mimicking something a professor had once said).

Some of the stuff in the post is interesting for discussion, definitely. I don't believe you can separate "style" from "content," though, so the post's claim that "a good story" is "a good story" no matter what is wrong, I think. Any story at all can be "good" if it is "told" well."

There. I really have trouble with absolutes and essentialisms like "good." Not that there isn't any at all, just not that easy to define thoroughly.

Theoretically, any adaptation of an existing "timeless" tale has the potential to capture everything that made the original successful. Pixar's A Bug's Life is essentially Kurosawa's Seven Samurai — much of the premise is the same, and some of the characters are recognizable between the two stories. There are tons and tons that are different about the two as well, including the ending, but A Bug's Life remains a good story. Maybe that's a poor example though, since A Bug's Life does kind of take a life of its own.

For an adaptation that simply twisted names, faces, and locations around while changing nothing else, the work might come under fire simply because people recognized it was contributing little to the original, like the 90's (?) remake of Psycho. But if people completely forgot about the original Psycho, then perhaps the remake would have been better received.

There isn't really a lot of variety with regards to plots in narratives, or story structures.

Plots are pretty much informed by conflict, of which there are three general kinds:

1. person vs. person/self(?)
2. person vs. environment/nature/elements
3. person vs. society

Stories either end in favor of the protagonist, or a 'bad' end happens. Stories could be plot resolution oriented (the source of the conflict are destroyed/beaten/repulsed), or can resolve in an epiphany by the protagonist.

Then there are the formulas.

Stories are basically these, only with different specific settings (though even these can be made of general categories), and different characters (of which there are general types). Stories are a collection of tropes (not to say this is a bad thing at all).

Given that, what makes the story good? Is it the particulars of the combination of tropes and types? What makes the Mononoke story good? If we replace the names and the setting but otherwise tell the same story (change the character designs, etc.), but otherwise keep everything at the same quality in execution… will this work be timeless too?

I feel that we're missing something here, but for the life of me I don't know what.

Timelessness likely has to be attributed only to content because any accompanying media is almost surely doomed to advances in technology. The movie The Sound of Music may well disappear into obscurity in the future as video tapes, VHS, DVDs, and the ilk fade away from use, but the story presented in that movie may transcend through whatever new media is created. It might be comparable to the number of people who have actually seen a Shakespeare stage play performed rather than experienced through some other form. Even for something like animation, where the media is so tied so closely to the content, the "timeless" attribute applies more to the content as the media can still be updated or remastered or whatever else as long as the bulk of the story remains untouched, kind of like Dragonball Kai?

I've never liked the idea of a creative canon — "essential" is an opinion and therefore can't be dictated. If timelessness applies to all good stories and the definition of a good story varies from person to person, then surely there cannot be any sort of canon created from that. Even popular opinion is only popular opinion.

There really can't be a baseline time period to measure timelessness because critics cannot watch the world change around a work forever. In that sense, you're undoubtedly right — no one can really ever judge timelessness because individuals are not timeless. They are only capable of judging in the span of time that has passed within their lifetime, and yet, if they believe a story is good and accessible, then why not? Assuming technological compatibility, any person at any point in time can take the time to experience something in almost exactly the way it was originally intended, including background information about the time it was produced.

But yes, the adjective should only apply to individual works rather than a body or a movement.

As far as the media is concerned, like I say — it is the story that's timeless, not its media. Princess Mononoke is a good story. That is an opinion, but there will likely always be people who think that it's a good story. It has gorgeous animation, but no media is timeless. In the future, maybe they will enjoy the movie via direct input to the brain. I have no idea how that'd work and whether the animation would somehow translate correctly, but in the end, even if the story is relayed by means of telepathy… it's still a good story. Animation might become a lost art eventually, but Princess Mononoke will still be a good story.

I've personally seen very little of Astro Boy, not enough to make a judgment call, but I do know individuals that hold it in high regard. I think popularity is a poor indication of quality though, so the fact that it never caught on with later generations or outside of Asia may only be because of general laziness on the part of those audiences. Maybe they just haven't taken the time to look at with the past and the context in consideration.

Moving on, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of timelessness. I feel it's quite hubristic for me or anyone to call piece timeless as if it were a quality, or attribute of the work, rather than a contingent phenomenon: the subject text happens to be appreciated contemporary critics.

Part of this is due to my personal withdrawal from making reviews/rankings etc. for general consumption. I always come from a very subjective place and offer such declarations as sharing (for like-minded people to agree with, or just something to consider) rather than making a stand on a specific work (i.e. Gundam 00 is a good show, a solid 7 on MAL).

Here are some things worth considering I think:

Can timelessness be attributable to content? You mention that certain narratives are timeless, and Campbell/Jung/Frye's work on myth and archetypes will probably tell us yes (read: these things are always relevant to human beings).

The idea of a literary/musical/artistic canon is informed by the attribute of timelessness after all. The idea of a canon is that the works within it are either essential to the media, or should be required experiences for the student/critic/connossieur.

If no, what is the baseline time period to measure timelessness? This I think must be applied to an individual work rather than a corpus of an author, or an entire artistic movement (i.e. romanticism, baroque, etc.) 2 decades? Half a century?

This particular question is relevant to the contingencies of young media. Princes Mononoke may seem timeless, but is animated cinema timeless in itself as a medium? Is anime timeless? Is manga timeless?

I wonder about titles such as Tetsuwon Atom/Astroboy, which failed to capture subsequent generations of fans, or more accurately capture the imagination of fans outside Japan. What does this mean within the conversation of timelessness?