Quote:
Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim
Well, most Americans only read at the 8th grade level that is why Patterson is popular ( I actually don't think Patterson is a good author) but I never mentioned anything about the popularity of the author so you are arguing over a strawman.
|
No strawman at all. I tried to pick crime writers that the average person would know. You are reading intention in my words that was not there, my friend.
Quote:
Obviously, some older classics will stand up to the test of time I just said most won't.
Anyway, here are some examples of newer books possibly being better :
"A Gentleman in Moscow", by Amor Towles
"The Heart", by Maylis de Kerangal
"The Sympathizer", by Viet Thanh Nguyen
"Seveneves", by Neal Stephenson
"The Rosie Effect", by Graeme Simsion
"Patriot and Assassin", by Robert Cook
"Turtles All the Way Down", by John Green
"The Hunger Games", by Suzanne Collins
"The Cat’s Table", by Michael Ondaatje
etc...etc...
|
So, those are modern books that you like quite a bit. That is fine. But since you are the one comparing modern books to classics (why both can't just be good is a mystery to me) and you are claiming it as a fact rather than your taste, I'm asking you for specifics.
What modern book is better than what classic? Why is, let's say, The Scarlet Letter just objectively not a good book? Or The Grapes of Wrath? If those aren't good examples, please do point me to what you are referring to.
You say that you know it is the book that is at fault and not just your taste. If that is true, then you should be able to point to some specific proof.