rara-avis@icomm.ca wrote:
> James Rogers wrote:
> Maybe this discussion leads us nowhere. I was only
asking "why pulp
> fiction is suddenly defined so broadly?"
Because that's the way language works. Some or many terms
with specific definitions, like "pulp" or "tragedy" or
"romance," enter the language meaning something specific.
Through common usage they become degraded (linguistically
speaking) and are applied to things that they don't (strictly
speaking) apply to. People continue to use the terms
erroneously, and eventually the definitions of the terms
alter so that they common usage is accurate. That's what's
happening with "pulp," I think, and I don't believe it's a
sudden occurrence. I think it's been years in the making, and
we're only recognizing it now.
jess
-- # 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 : 08 Jun 2000 EDT