Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Nits Picked While You Wait....

From: James Rogers (
Date: 07 Jun 2000

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


James Michael Rogers

# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
# The web pages for the list are at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Jun 2000 EDT