Edit: clarity. I never intended to say anything about the classics' value, only their past and future popularity.
(in hindsight, the former could easily have been an interpretation of the post)
The lessons learned from classics are constantly quoted, and it's beneficial for people to read and learn.
Also I need to hit him up for some pick-up advice.
they both have a wise man (Prof/Jubal),
someone with ridiculous power to get them what they need (Mike PC and the Frenchman/Jubal and Mike Smith),
someone rallying to the cause (Wyoh/Ben)
and someone who is central to the cause but is initially reluctant (Manuel/Jill)
and it's a fight for rights of the powerless over the incumbent rulers. They both have a rebellious feel, though "Moon" is more blunt about its political statement (anti-war, small government).
My argument was that we aren't destroying the silos because we hate the information, we're destroying them because we hate the silos. And if that's beneficial, who cares if most people, who wouldn't have otherwise read Russian literature or listened to Mozart, still don't?
I mean, Google is obviously supplanting the manual for a lot of things, but the point is much the same. If people read the fucking manual, they'll have a lot fewer problems. And a lot of the classics are pretty damn good manuals for life.
It's important to know of the past, but many who use this argument are simply afraid of the present, and are attempting to denigrate new ideas and discoveries.
So, I do think it is an accurate phrase, but misunderstood.