Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 1% of 1950`s best still sounds awful when compared to 1% of 1790`s
>> best. ;)
>
> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and said
> something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that isn't
> at least 100 years old and still popular." The person he's talking to
> says "doesn't that rather limit your options?" The protagonist says
> "Not really."
Consider that since the American Civil War something like 60,000 books
about the war have been published. Even if you cull the bottom 99%, you
still have lots to read.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|