I don't disagree per se. But it doesn't follow that therefor all the good literature is in the past.
In fact, rereading your post I'm not even sure where you get the idea that I'm a "neophile." I have no particular interest in the contemporary. My argument is just that the past cannot hope to comment comprehensively on the present or future, which I think the analogy with science makes pretty clear. Things genuinely do change. Our genes change, our technology changes, our philosophies, sciences and religions change. I agree that the past has much to say about the present and a really informed person could not possibly ignore it, but it simply doesn't follow that we don't need any more literature or new ways of telling stories or interrogating our lives.
In fact, rereading your post I'm not even sure where you get the idea that I'm a "neophile." I have no particular interest in the contemporary. My argument is just that the past cannot hope to comment comprehensively on the present or future, which I think the analogy with science makes pretty clear. Things genuinely do change. Our genes change, our technology changes, our philosophies, sciences and religions change. I agree that the past has much to say about the present and a really informed person could not possibly ignore it, but it simply doesn't follow that we don't need any more literature or new ways of telling stories or interrogating our lives.