If you're going to say that old books are better than new ones

[conuly]

because you think that all the books in the past were classics, do yourself a favor - go take some time and read some bestsellers of whenever that have largely been forgotten today, and never quite made it to hallowed "classic" status. I'll wait.

Note: Do this whether you're talking in general or only about some specific subset of books.

*****

Stunning Aerial Photographs Find The “Hidden City” Inside New York City

Scientists Create a Buzz With the First Ever Global Map of Bee Species

1st drug for rare rapid-aging disease extends kids' lives

If museums want to diversify, they’ll have to change. A lot.

I Lived Exclusively Off Doomsday Prepper Food for a Week

IBM Apologizes For Firing Computer Pioneer For Being Transgender...52 Years Later

A new lawsuit alleges Trump’s effort to overturn Michigan’s election results disenfranchises Black voters

The US social safety net has been ripped to shreds -- and women are paying the price

UK sourced PPE from factories secretly using North Korean slave labour

The Final Pandemic Surge Is Crashing Over America

She fled Ethiopia's fighting. Now she warns of 'catastrophe'

Comments

[conuly]

On the flip side, let's be blunt: some classics are overrated. Obviously we won't all like every work, "acclaimed classic" or not, but there are some that just got better press than contemporary works that were objectively better but, for whatever reason, forgotten.

[fred_mouse]

*cough* Dickens *cough*

[dark_phoenix54]

Oh, gawd yes. I've read some classics that I absolutely couldn't figure out WHY. Like 'Don Quixote'. Cervantes must have been paid by the word, I swear. Same with Melville- 'Billy Budd' has a couple of chapters on nautical knot tying that I can't figure out how they advanced the plot. *shakes head*