here's a thing: I haven't read any of that stuff. I'm kinda bummed that I haven't. Well, there's a possibility that I've read The Old Man and the Sea, but I don't remember for sure.

Often when I read something I don't like I don't end up reading it all. I've never studied literature, not since high school at least, and so haven't read anything because I've "had" to since then. What that has meant is that basically my exposure to classics, or old stuff, or whatever, has been not very big. I'm also not being able to think of what I HAVE read that was even written during the middle of the 20th century. "On the Road," when was that? "Ham on Rye" by Bukowski I read recently. That latter I actually liked a lot more than I'd expected; I bought it because it was called Ham on Rye. Or, no, I picked it up because it was called that, and it was at the goodwill, and then I read a few sentences and thought, "oh, that's good writing." I'd never heard of the guy. So I actually enjoyed myself reading that. I have no idea when it was written, but I'm thinking the 60s or something.

And I realize you weren't saying this quality was something about ALL the stuff from that time period, either. So I'm kinda... blurphed. It seems like it'd be sort of counter-productive to read one of these things on the grounds that you anti-suggested it. If you were someone with whom I didn't agree, in general, that might make sense, but since the contrary seems to hold true...