[johngossman]

I recently read a blog that argued exactly the opposite: that there was no point in reading old books because if they contained good ideas, somebody had written a newer book that better summarized those and combined them with new ideas, and that old books were liable to be wrong. Both arguments are wrong. The point is to read good books, not (usually) to just pick books before or after a certain date. I see elsewhere you argue that people at the time can’t evaluate the facts because they don’t have perspective. It is usually argued that people writing history lack understanding (and facts) about periods they didn’t live through. Short vs long form is also missing the point: short articles can be error ridden, misguided and even boring. At best they will waste less of your time, but there are great, long books that provide texture and insight that cannot be summarized.