At 07:26 AM 6/7/00 -0400, Kevin Burton Smith wrote:
>
>No, but it was a digest, not a pulp. If the purists
insist on an
>actual, literal meaning of pulp fiction where only
things published
>in the pulps qualify, then anything published in book
form or in the
>digests or slicks wouldn't qualify.
>
>
I think I agree with everything
you say except the sharp distinction here between the digest
size and the "pulp". _The Shadow_ and _Weird Tales_ were, I
think we would all agree, definitively pulps yet both
published in digest format for their last few years. Or, to
take another example, did
_Astounding_ cease to be a pulp when it switched to digest
size?
It seems that the current
usage of the term "pulp" is to use it exclusively in it's
pejorative sense...."pulp" meaning literary or cultural junk.
Even I employ this usage from time to time, as in calling Fu
Manchu
"sheer pulp" even though most of the stories were originally
published in
_Collier's_.
James
James Michael Rogers
jetan@ionet.net
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Jun 2000 EDT