The other day, y’all, I was really delighted to find a new blog called Dead White Guys: An Irreverent Guide to Classic Literature. This sounds like great fun. I like her philosophy, from my explorations so far. Check it out.
I was perhaps most excited, however, to find her answer to the question: What makes a classic? (You can visit my musing attempt at an answer here.)
I find that we mostly agree. Amanda says a classic is “a book that is timeless (but not necessarily old), excellently written, and contributes to the Great Conversation of human thought (to borrow a phrase from Robert Hutchins).” (Ahem: the Great Conversation is also the name of an annual event at my alma mater. Thank you.) So. I also said timelessness was a criterion, but I am still concerned that maybe there should be some sort of wait list? What if we all LOVE this new book in 2011 and think it’s a classic – can we really know, in 2011, if it will pass the test of timelessness?
Excellently written (elsewhere she says “artistically well done”), yes, absolutely also a criterion. But this is a hairy mess of subjectivity. Taken on a case-by-case basis, and assuming I am the judge of this, okay. Excellently written. I shall judge.
Contributing to the Great Conversation a la Robert Hutchins is an excellent requirement, too. That’s one I left off of my earlier (totally inadequate) musings on the subject. Again, subjective, but I think we might be able to agree on this one a little more easily. Of course all judging of the merits of Art face this problem. Also, what if a book is timeless, and beautifully written, but doesn’t tackle the kind of difficult themes that might cause it to make Contributions? Still a classic?
Do you have any thoughts to share? I’m always interested in input on this subject; it continues to bother me. Please comment. And go check out Dead White Guys; I’ll be doing the same.
pagesofjulia 
Leave a comment