> Reading difficult work earlier develops higher reading comprehension faster.
What makes a classic American author better than a modern author who writes at a high level? (Note that most popular authors don't write at a difficult enough level, but out of the thousands of books published each year some will be high enough - many authors of old did not write at a high enough level either)
Classics are classics for a reason, they've stood the stand of time and scrutiny as literature of value.
Reading level of the material aside, I think it's more valuable to read The Catcher in the Rye than The Hunger Games because of the subject matter and impact on popular culture.
Classic literature is genre defining and gives you appreciation for the art of novelization.
It's hard to gain an initial appreciation for reading if you don't enjoy the reading you do, which is a good argument for the bestseller list, but it's hard to gain any depth of appreciation without understanding it's roots.
You might say you like hip-hop because lil-yachty made your head bounce on the radio, but without listening to N.W.A. you can't really say you understand it.
What makes a classic American author better than a modern author who writes at a high level? (Note that most popular authors don't write at a difficult enough level, but out of the thousands of books published each year some will be high enough - many authors of old did not write at a high enough level either)