I don’t have a lot of patience for people who argue that new books are better than old ones because of the “newness” factor, writes Peter Rizun in the Atlantic.
That’s an old trope, which has been used to justify the sale of books that have not been written yet.
I’m not going to argue with you that the latest Holocaust novel, a novel called “The Black Death,” is better than the latest novel by John Bartholomew, which is still a new story.
Bartholomes novel is better because it’s written in English.
It is also not new.
It’s been around for centuries.
It can be read in a variety of ways.
But it’s also worth noting that this is not the same thing as saying that a new one is better.
Barthols novel is a novel that has been published before, so it’s not that it doesn’t belong in that class.
Bartholes novel is not a work of art.
It doesn’t deserve to be a work, it just doesn’t need to be.
The new book is not necessarily better than a previous one, or even better than what you already know.
In the same way that, say, an old television show is not better than another old television program, a new film is not worse than a film that’s been out of print for a long time.
But the fact that the new one has been released in the same market and in the time that the previous one was released does not necessarily mean that it’s a better film.
What matters is that it has been made by a different author, by a new director, or a new editor.
And I can understand that a movie is more interesting and more memorable if the story of the movie is different from the story about the movie, but the story and the art are not.
I can’t understand why, for instance, a story about a Holocaust survivor in an orphanage is better for a new Holocaust film than one about a real Holocaust survivor who’s living in a ghetto.
The problem is not that the book has been written before, it’s that it hasn’t been published.
I’d prefer that a novel is published first and then a film first, but that’s not the way it works.
New books are the same, and they are not inferior.
They are better because they are new.
And the new book does not have to be the same story as the old one.
If it has changed the way the story is told, it has done so in a way that’s entirely new to the story.
So I can appreciate that a book like “The New Colossus” is better, but I’d be much happier if the new novel was about something new than if it was about a book about a previous novel.
I also have a few issues with this argument.
First, this argument is based on the idea that new literature has a higher chance of being accepted, even though the literature of the past has not been accepted.
The argument goes that if you can’t find a good novel from the past, there’s no reason to expect that there’s a good new novel from today.
And that’s simply not the case.
I know it’s been suggested that new writers are going to fail because they’re not the ones writing good new novels, but we have the Nobel Prize in Literature for the most prolific writers in the world, including the great writers of the 19th century like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Nietzsche, Franz Kafka, Franz Steiner, and so on.
They’re all still alive, and if we had to guess who is writing the next best book, it would be our great great grandfathers like Robert Frost, Henry James, Robert Lowell, Samuel Beckett, Charles Dickens, Charles Bukowski, and Ernest Hemingway.
I don.t. believe that this argument holds water.
First of all, if we have good authors, we know they have good taste.
Second, the people who are writing the best novels in the history of literature don’t always get a Nobel Prize.
Third, the best novelists are not going away.
Even today, there are people like Peter Straub who are writers whose novels are better known and more widely read than their novels.
If we are to believe that all the best authors are now gone, then that’s a great pity.
I suspect that a lot more people than we know are writing excellent new books, and the best books are getting better and better.
In short, I think it’s time to stop talking about new literature as if it has a better chance of getting published than other literature.
There’s no evidence to support this view.
As far as I can tell, we don’t know that new literary works are more likely to be accepted.
And if you think that, and you think about it for a moment, then I’m sure you’ll agree that