>>788>We give older works too much credit these daysI disagree. See below.
>"Nothing is good after 1960s" folks will be the "nothing is good after 1970s" folks instead.I am
>>778 . I did not literally mean that all the best books are from then.
You didn't find the "back in my day, like five years ago" part as being slightly ridiculous? There are a good amount of works that are written nowadays that are good. I would say, though, that time clears things up. That mediocre garbage people read and say that it is the best thing ever? It will be gone in a few decades; barely read. Now, the good and great books from this time frame will be remembered and still read.
What I am trying to say is, time is like a filter for books. Gradually, the lesser books fall away, and only the best remain. That is why older books seem better. Not because they ARE better, but because you can usually be assured that they are quality reads, whether for pleasure, information, etc. Time washes away what is weak, and leaves the strong.
In 50 years, the Hunger Games will be slightly read, but Harry Potter will still be popular, as will the Lord of the Rings (and I am hoping that the Ranger's Apprentice series will be popular; they are good.) I hope that clears things up.
Oh, and I finished the first book in the Hunger Game series. It seemed good, but not brilliant. I would say that it is popular because of good writing meets mediocre story = movie + $$$