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