each category has his own role in my reading habits, to me it's something that i cannot compare. it's like analog photography versus digital photography: both have their importance in my life
None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.
Ironically, I just tried reading C.S. Lewis this weekend. I have the "Complete Chronicles of Narnia" on my coffee table, so I decided to start with the first story, The Magician's Nephew. Needless to say I didn't get too far. I was reading to my grandson and his dad (my son) said, what the hell is this??😂
Both have their place in my reading rotation. It is highly subjective on genre. I think it is important to explore classic literature, especially those works which have obviously withstood the test of time. Contemporary fiction is more hit or miss with me but I do enjoy it on occasion. Non-fiction tends to be the opposite. I would prefer to read stuff written more recently.
Thanks for the question, Mikey. And for pointing me towards Justin’s Substack, which has, like your own, some overlapping features with mine. But to answer the question... if I were given only five books to read for the rest of my life they would all be old ones. No doubt about this. I like to vary my reading and discover new writers but there’s something very satisfying about returning to the classics. I’m going to indulge in the slow read of War and Peace here on Substack with @FootnotesandTangents in the new year.
I prefer contemporary. I read many of the old books that were considered 'must reads' when completing my English degree (way back in the day). I supposed I should review them again as it's been awhile. However, with whatever time I have left, I'm going with contemporary. I will leave it to you Mikey to provide me with the synopsis of the oldies. ;)
First, thank you so much for the recommendation! I'm fairly new to Substack, and I'm still feeling my way around. So any notice at all is greatly appreciated, especially from BTMU.
As for the discussion topic (preference for older vs. newer books), I'm with @perfectlight; the answer, for me, is "It depends." The same holds true for other art forms. I love van Gogh. I also love contemporary, abstract art. On television I adore Discovery Channel's "Shark Week," and on the same night I might watch a PBS documentary about research into the life of Jesus of Nazareth. This is not to say that either older writing or contemporary styles are more or less deep or superficial. But they're different, and they satisfy in different ways. I love Charles Dickens as much as I love Margaret Atwood (though probably I would not read them on the same day!).
I have no preference in choosing what to read. I've been reading both old books and new ones (my reads range from the Persian translation of Dante's trilogy [Inferno, Purgatory and Paradise] to Nicholas Sparks's works and Andrzej Sapkowski's works. I've also read a few non-literary books including a book about gardening, and math formulas for engineering students (it was my dad's book. I needed to review some math formulas and he let me borrow this book until i was finished).
I've wrestled with this question a lot with friends over the years. Personally I am biased toward reading older books because-as many commentators on the "the great books" have pointed out- time acts like a sieve, often weaning out the books that transcend time and speak to core human universals.
However, as many have also pointed out, the distribution of voices throughout history have been heavily biased and skewed toward the Western canon for various historical reasons. With the explosion of the internet and self-publishing becoming evermore accessible, we are in a golden age of witnessing a democratization of voices across the globe which is wonderful. But ultimately, what that means is that it's harder to evaluate the modern greats until some time has passed and that only evokes another great philosophical question: who is to say what a "great work" is?
Nevertheless, at the end of the day I know I cannot live forever. At best we can read a few thousand books in our lifetime so we're forced into prioritizing the ones we think give us the greatest insight into the human condition. Thus, we must face an uncomfortable tradeoff. I attempt to balance old and contemporary books as much as I can, but will likely always side with older books more partly due to time sieving phenomenon I mentioned above and partly because I am an archaeologist, anthropologist, and historian so feel it is my role and privilege to uncover something crucial about our past and most of the method lies in consulting the original texts.
So perhaps it is our chosen professions that also play a role in tipping the scales into our book preferences. I could say a lot more about this, but personally find this a fun and evocative question. Thanks for sharing!
I should have thought it would depend on the nature of the book. For example, old biology books might have curiosity value, but will not have the latest discoveries. Ditto other sciences and even subjects like history or literature or music or art, where new archives or hitherto unknown creators have recently been discovered. On the other hand, old fiction can be very entertaining and unwokified, although humour tends to travel less well over time. This is all a very long-winded way of saying I think it's a daft question, with all due respect😂, and that I agree with perfectlight.
I can only read what I can relate to. I prefer to read books that are relevant to the present - and that would be a lot of old books, and all contemporary books!
I am most drawn to old fiction books because, well, I have a lot of catching up to do. I rarely read a book published in the current year but sometimes I pick up contemporary ones now and then.
I want to want to read old books and I might pick up one or two classics a year, but I usually stick with contemporary books. What I'd really like to read is books from the years I didn't read much. I wasn't a big reader as a kid and I never read anything that wasn't assigned in high school and college. I'd love to go back and see what the popular books were between 1979 and 2005... in fact that might be my book project for 2024!
I read mostly "old" books but I suspect it may be to my own detriment. We know, as aspiring writers, reading is a pillar of refining the craft and we turn to "the greats" to construct our syllabus, our required reading. I do believe this is essential. However, innovation in art, in writing happens *now*. The brilliant minds pushing the boundaries of the medium are creating right now, as we speak, and some of these gifted writers will join the pantheon of the greats; time will tell.
I can't help but notice the intense air of camaraderie and competition when I read biographies and "on writing" type memoirs from the great, "old" authors I admire. They were friends with other great writers, they gritted their teeth when their nemesis received literary accolades, their peers pushed them to innovate and transcend the ceilings of known mastery of the form.
How can I incorporate the works of the future greats, the writers of now into my own growth when I'm so attracted to dusty old "masterpieces"? Seriously, open to suggestions haha.
Anything good! Old classics very often have staying power and quality but not all of them speak to me; contemporary books require a bit more sifting but some of my favorite works of literature are by living or recently living authors.
I mostly read older books, especially the period spanning the years 1900 to 1940. Besides Kerouac, I seldom read authors published after the 1960's. This goes for both fiction and non-fiction. The problem with classics from 1500 - 1870 is that they will always be museum pieces requiring hours of intellectual 'slogging' to decipher them, while anything contemporary (1970 - present) feels irrelevant and 'unnecessary'. I feel like I absolutely need to be aware of Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, and Joyce (regardless of whether I like them) while I don't feel the same about today's authors, most of whom are merely 'entertainers' and 'storytellers' compared to the great thinkers of the past. There is also a lack of style in today's story-based fiction--it certainly ain't Ulysses!--and the conventional and unassuming narrative doesn't interest me. I am more interested in ideas and style than story, so it is the first half of the 20th century that interests me most.
I favor the classics because they have a tried and true feel to them. Even if I disagree with a book, there’s clearly something there that’s made the book last. However, I’m always on the lookout for contemporary books that might one day, 100 yrs from now, be considered one of the classics.
Ooooohhhhh fellow writers of older styled literature! I will be sure to check them out, I love older styled lit, and have been purposely writing in that style as it is so much lovelier than modern prose I think. Thanks for this list Mr. Rothwell!
each category has his own role in my reading habits, to me it's something that i cannot compare. it's like analog photography versus digital photography: both have their importance in my life
Great analogy!
Yes, but I do read new books too.
C.S. Lewis said it well:
None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.
Ironically, I just tried reading C.S. Lewis this weekend. I have the "Complete Chronicles of Narnia" on my coffee table, so I decided to start with the first story, The Magician's Nephew. Needless to say I didn't get too far. I was reading to my grandson and his dad (my son) said, what the hell is this??😂
Both have their place in my reading rotation. It is highly subjective on genre. I think it is important to explore classic literature, especially those works which have obviously withstood the test of time. Contemporary fiction is more hit or miss with me but I do enjoy it on occasion. Non-fiction tends to be the opposite. I would prefer to read stuff written more recently.
I started from the back and am working my way forward. I’m to Canterbury Tales already. Not too long before I catch up.
😂😂😂
I prefer the older ones . They may have been contemporary when I read them. : )
Thanks for the question, Mikey. And for pointing me towards Justin’s Substack, which has, like your own, some overlapping features with mine. But to answer the question... if I were given only five books to read for the rest of my life they would all be old ones. No doubt about this. I like to vary my reading and discover new writers but there’s something very satisfying about returning to the classics. I’m going to indulge in the slow read of War and Peace here on Substack with @FootnotesandTangents in the new year.
I prefer contemporary. I read many of the old books that were considered 'must reads' when completing my English degree (way back in the day). I supposed I should review them again as it's been awhile. However, with whatever time I have left, I'm going with contemporary. I will leave it to you Mikey to provide me with the synopsis of the oldies. ;)
I read mostly contemporary fiction but my love will never waiver for Jane Austen and Emily Brontë.
First, thank you so much for the recommendation! I'm fairly new to Substack, and I'm still feeling my way around. So any notice at all is greatly appreciated, especially from BTMU.
As for the discussion topic (preference for older vs. newer books), I'm with @perfectlight; the answer, for me, is "It depends." The same holds true for other art forms. I love van Gogh. I also love contemporary, abstract art. On television I adore Discovery Channel's "Shark Week," and on the same night I might watch a PBS documentary about research into the life of Jesus of Nazareth. This is not to say that either older writing or contemporary styles are more or less deep or superficial. But they're different, and they satisfy in different ways. I love Charles Dickens as much as I love Margaret Atwood (though probably I would not read them on the same day!).
You’re very welcome, Robin!
I have no preference in choosing what to read. I've been reading both old books and new ones (my reads range from the Persian translation of Dante's trilogy [Inferno, Purgatory and Paradise] to Nicholas Sparks's works and Andrzej Sapkowski's works. I've also read a few non-literary books including a book about gardening, and math formulas for engineering students (it was my dad's book. I needed to review some math formulas and he let me borrow this book until i was finished).
I prefer good, really good books!
I've wrestled with this question a lot with friends over the years. Personally I am biased toward reading older books because-as many commentators on the "the great books" have pointed out- time acts like a sieve, often weaning out the books that transcend time and speak to core human universals.
However, as many have also pointed out, the distribution of voices throughout history have been heavily biased and skewed toward the Western canon for various historical reasons. With the explosion of the internet and self-publishing becoming evermore accessible, we are in a golden age of witnessing a democratization of voices across the globe which is wonderful. But ultimately, what that means is that it's harder to evaluate the modern greats until some time has passed and that only evokes another great philosophical question: who is to say what a "great work" is?
Nevertheless, at the end of the day I know I cannot live forever. At best we can read a few thousand books in our lifetime so we're forced into prioritizing the ones we think give us the greatest insight into the human condition. Thus, we must face an uncomfortable tradeoff. I attempt to balance old and contemporary books as much as I can, but will likely always side with older books more partly due to time sieving phenomenon I mentioned above and partly because I am an archaeologist, anthropologist, and historian so feel it is my role and privilege to uncover something crucial about our past and most of the method lies in consulting the original texts.
So perhaps it is our chosen professions that also play a role in tipping the scales into our book preferences. I could say a lot more about this, but personally find this a fun and evocative question. Thanks for sharing!
I should have thought it would depend on the nature of the book. For example, old biology books might have curiosity value, but will not have the latest discoveries. Ditto other sciences and even subjects like history or literature or music or art, where new archives or hitherto unknown creators have recently been discovered. On the other hand, old fiction can be very entertaining and unwokified, although humour tends to travel less well over time. This is all a very long-winded way of saying I think it's a daft question, with all due respect😂, and that I agree with perfectlight.
I can only read what I can relate to. I prefer to read books that are relevant to the present - and that would be a lot of old books, and all contemporary books!
I am most drawn to old fiction books because, well, I have a lot of catching up to do. I rarely read a book published in the current year but sometimes I pick up contemporary ones now and then.
I want to want to read old books and I might pick up one or two classics a year, but I usually stick with contemporary books. What I'd really like to read is books from the years I didn't read much. I wasn't a big reader as a kid and I never read anything that wasn't assigned in high school and college. I'd love to go back and see what the popular books were between 1979 and 2005... in fact that might be my book project for 2024!
This sounds like an interesting project. And one that will provoke some memories too (good ones I hope).
I read mostly "old" books but I suspect it may be to my own detriment. We know, as aspiring writers, reading is a pillar of refining the craft and we turn to "the greats" to construct our syllabus, our required reading. I do believe this is essential. However, innovation in art, in writing happens *now*. The brilliant minds pushing the boundaries of the medium are creating right now, as we speak, and some of these gifted writers will join the pantheon of the greats; time will tell.
I can't help but notice the intense air of camaraderie and competition when I read biographies and "on writing" type memoirs from the great, "old" authors I admire. They were friends with other great writers, they gritted their teeth when their nemesis received literary accolades, their peers pushed them to innovate and transcend the ceilings of known mastery of the form.
How can I incorporate the works of the future greats, the writers of now into my own growth when I'm so attracted to dusty old "masterpieces"? Seriously, open to suggestions haha.
Came across this lecture on Big Think by Jeffrey Brenzel a few years ago and is a great supplement to this discussion:
https://youtu.be/cVLpdzhcU0g?si=0ojh9no-FWbLjxn7
My collection spans froom Gilgamesh to Danielewski. The answer is "all."
Anything good! Old classics very often have staying power and quality but not all of them speak to me; contemporary books require a bit more sifting but some of my favorite works of literature are by living or recently living authors.
I mostly read older books, especially the period spanning the years 1900 to 1940. Besides Kerouac, I seldom read authors published after the 1960's. This goes for both fiction and non-fiction. The problem with classics from 1500 - 1870 is that they will always be museum pieces requiring hours of intellectual 'slogging' to decipher them, while anything contemporary (1970 - present) feels irrelevant and 'unnecessary'. I feel like I absolutely need to be aware of Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, and Joyce (regardless of whether I like them) while I don't feel the same about today's authors, most of whom are merely 'entertainers' and 'storytellers' compared to the great thinkers of the past. There is also a lack of style in today's story-based fiction--it certainly ain't Ulysses!--and the conventional and unassuming narrative doesn't interest me. I am more interested in ideas and style than story, so it is the first half of the 20th century that interests me most.
A mixture of both classic and contemporary
I favor the classics because they have a tried and true feel to them. Even if I disagree with a book, there’s clearly something there that’s made the book last. However, I’m always on the lookout for contemporary books that might one day, 100 yrs from now, be considered one of the classics.
Ooooohhhhh fellow writers of older styled literature! I will be sure to check them out, I love older styled lit, and have been purposely writing in that style as it is so much lovelier than modern prose I think. Thanks for this list Mr. Rothwell!
Both equally, although I have a particular fondness for anything written between 1920 and 1960 - Allingham, Mitford, Pym, Wodehouse...