[LMB] now OT: BiA: Ch 15 - Lost and found.
kcollett at hamilton.edu
Tue Jun 23 03:12:21 BST 2015
On Jun 22, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Pat Mathews <mathews55 at msn.com> wrote:
> That and other titles told me many of the period's best sellers were juveniles and YA, which of course the Historically Significant Books list would not have bothered with.
I noticed a bunch of juveniles on the historically significant side, including Charlotte's Web and The Hobbit. I'm actually surprised that Harry Potter doesn't appear on either side (hm, especially since wikipedia says that it was at the top of the bestseller lists in 1999). I do note that in the more recent years there's a steep dropoff of critically acclaimed/historically significant -- I guess at least partly because it's hard to know yet what will have been historically significant.
On Jun 22, 2015, at 7:19 PM, alayne at twobikes.ottawa.on.ca wrote:
> I checked my library catalogue last week -- out of curiosity -- for _Please Don't Eat the Daisies_ by Jean Kerr and it wasn't there. And yet it was a bestseller for YEARS in its heyday.
We have it! Possibly picked up from a library used book sale.
A lot of the titles take me back to my teens and our small local library, where I continued reading in the children's section but also prowled the adult shelves. I read a number of the vaguely religious or uplifting novels on these lists at that point, and a lot of the bestsellers of the '30s and '40s.
More information about the Lois-Bujold