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

From: James Rogers (
Date: 08 Jun 2000

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
>discuss "pulp fiction", meaning something that resembles Tarantino's film,
>Gorman's, Greenberg's and Pronzini's collections and things like that. I
>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 Michael Rogers

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Jun 2000 EDT