Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
Not that they aren't good books (I loved Moorcock in my teens), but it seems odd for books that are 40-60 years old to appear on a 'Best Books of 2010' list simply because they got reissued.
|
Why shouldn't they? The list should be considered "The one hundred best SF books
read in 2010 by the readers of SF Crowsnest." There's no reason that should include only books first
published in 2010. They are new to the readers, regardless of when they were first written.
______
Dennis