I mean, "as they actually evidenced themselves as I read them", rather than "by way of conventional view".  Obviously I'm talking about my own opinion.  I suspect a book like catcher in the rye would have a hard time getting published and selling today.  Without being preceded by its acclaim, most readers would think it ho-hum.<p>This is true of a lot of things, though.  Take Shakespeare's comedies.  They aren't funny.  A modern Shakespeare audience laughs at the jokes even though they already see them coming (having read the play multiple times already).  This is the opposite of normal experience.  I won't laugh much at a genuinely funny comedy if I've already seen it 10 times, so why would I laugh at 500-year-old puns that I've heard before...when even the best puns rarely cause laughter the first time?