James Rogers wrote:
> I don't know how you define real pulp, but 1896 is
not the year that
> Argosy started, but the year it switched to pulp
paper and began printing
> and reprinting adventure fiction.
Sorry, I should've remembered. (This sounds familiar.. maybe
I'm in the wrong territory here.)
> I don't quite follow what you are talking about
here. I am on pretty
> intimate terms with ERB fandom and we for sure
consider him a pulp writer.
I wasn't talking about fandom, I was talking about average
readers, but maybe pulp fiction isn't discussed by any
average reader.
> That they are not pulps will
> come as a huge shock at Pulpcon this summer. You
surely are aware that most
> of Robert E. Howard falls into this
niche?
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?"
Juri
jurnum@utu.fi
-- # 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