Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker
In my case, it comes down to needing a book to read, and wanting to read a well-written book that I haven't read yet. It doesn't matter to me what year the book was printed in -- this year, this decade, this century -- only whether it's good or not. And when there are two books that are likely to both be good, I'm inclined to go with my cheapskate impulses and pick the cheaper of the two, which in the case of classics is free.
In other words, a book written in the 1800s that I haven't read before is just as "new" to me as one written three days ago. Just cheaper.
|
"New" is not the same as "contemporary". There are plenty of classics I haven't read (yet), and the language is still readable, but times have changed. It's not as easy to connect to characters who live in a different century. Especially from a feminine view point, when so much has changed in the past 100 years. (Just try reading Stranger in a Strange Land as a 20-something female. I dare you. And that's relatively recent, published just 50 years ago.)
But in a post exchange we had a couple days ago, you said you don't really
connect to characters, whereas that's usually my main driving force behind reading. If I stop caring about the characters, I stop reading the book. So yeah, I can read the classics, and yeah, they're free, but 98% of the time I'll choose something contemporary and pay for it.