[DiapDealer]

I find that the only books that tend to not age well are books that inaccurately attempted to predict the future (a future that is now the present, or even the past). Sans that, I've (personally) never really run into a well-written book that didn't "age well." I prefer older works not be updated at all. I don't see any real point in doing it. Not even for children. The past doesn't need fixing, and it won't hurt anyone to read about about things with which they're totally unfamiliar--quite the contrary, in fact.

When first developing my love of reading, I read and enjoyed countless books that had words and concepts and settings and trappings I'd never ever encountered before. I loved it. It happens less and less as you grow older (and if not wiser, then at least more exposed). If you're not reading things you don't quite understand at a young age, you're never going to grow as reader. Not in my opinion, anyway.

Humans aren't anachronistically-corrected little bubbles of knowledge moving through time (I still dial the phone, and xerox stuff). Why should the books they write be?