At 08:37 PM 6/8/00 +0300, Juri wrote:
>
>I wasn't saying that they are not pulp, I was saying
that it just seems that
>Burroughs, Howard and some other writers of this vein
are separated when
people
>discuss "pulp fiction", meaning something that
resembles Tarantino's film,
>Gorman's, Greenberg's and Pronzini's collections and
things like that. I
haven't
>seen anything resembling Howard or Burroughs in "The
Mammoth Book of Pulp
>Fiction", "American Pulp" or "Pure Pulp".
>
>Maybe this discussion leads us nowhere. I was only
asking "why pulp
fiction is
>suddenly defined so broadly?"
>
You're right, it leads nowhere, but a fun
trip anyway.
Even more than the confusion caused by
Tarantino and others you mention, I think a lot of the blame
rests with E-bay. The outragous prices that get attached to
anything bearing the word "pulp" has led to a lot of items
being "recatagorized". Incredibly, I followed a link from the
westernpulps mailing list and saw a copy of Range Romances
going for about 25 bucks. As far as I am concerned, this
should sell in the two to five buck range, but go
figger.
For HB fans who want the real rotting paper
experience, E-bay _does_ seem to sell copies of Detective
Fiction Weekly on a fairly regular basis. I got one there for
about ten dollars, which seemed reasonable to me. Of course,
it was part of my continuing quest to find out more about
T.T. Flynn.
Next up on my personal reading list: George
Harmon Coxe's _Silent Are The Dead_ in an early Dell mapback.
Should fit everyone's definition of pulp.
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 : 08 Jun 2000 EDT