I am behind on my Rara-Avis reading so please forgive the
untimeliness of this reply, but, Yeah!, that Pulp vs Literary
false dichotomy crops up all the time (and not just in the
Times) and it really pisses me off too.
I just happened to be reading a Washingtom Post Review of the
new Michael Chabon novel The Yiddish Policeman's Union and I
detected the same condescending snobbery when the reviewer
contrasted Chabon's literary bona fides with his pulpy
inclinations. Am I just being sensitive or does this sound
like the same kind of snobbery you are talking about:
"What sort of writer is Michael Chabon? The question,
especially considering his terrific new novel, The Yiddish
Policemen's Union, is complicated. Of course he's literary,
author of the Pulitzer-winning The Amazing Adventures of
Kavalier & Clay and other marvelous books of fiction. His
work is page-turning and poignant; he is one of the best
writers of English prose alive. But Chabon has an avowed
interest in forms considered perhaps less than literary. He's
edited two anthologies of pulp-inspired stories for
McSweeney's, written a "story of detection" featuring
Sherlock Holmes, and he "presents" a comic book quarterly
starring one of the superheroes of Kavalier & Clay. He's
interested in busting the chains of everydayness that bind
many so-called literary writers: He wants to move and thrill
us both, and he does."
Yeah, God forbid any literary writer should slip up and
actually
"thrill" us. The funny thing is I just heard Michael Chabon
speak and he talked about exactly how meaningless these
distinctions are about literature and genre and pulp. I don't
think he is trying to break them down. I think he is way
beyond that. I wish the reviewers were to. The harder I think
about that term "literary" the less it seems to actually
mean. Maybe I should stop thinking. Maybe I'm just
overreacting. Grrrr.
Anyway here's the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR200705
1002593.html
By the way I haven't seen any mention of The Yiddish
Policeman's Union on here yet, (but I am behind) but it is
definitely Hard-boiled as well as being an alternate history.
Anyone read it?
Steve Svecz
-----Original Message----- From:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Gertzman
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 10:41 AM To: rara avis Subject:
RARA-AVIS: Philip K Dick, the NY Times, and pulp
The NY Times carried an article Sunday on Philip K Dick;
something must be done to show that the Good Grey Lady is hep
to his Library of America
collection. The article was headed "The Prince of Pulp"
("pulpish sensibility," "Thrilling Wonder Stories," "lurid
cover"). It contains some nice insights into his work ("to a
considerable extent Mr. Dick's future is a lot like our
present"), but it uses "pulp" as if this kind of writing is
suitable for Hollywood pot boilers. The Times implies
that
pulp is totally unattached to any kind of literary merit, as
if whatever
benefits there are to Dick's writing, they exist *in spite
of* the fact that he wrote for popular genre magazines and
Ace Doubles that were sold
on newsstands. It's a kind of bourgeois snobbery that
characterizes every literary and film evaluation of the
paper, and IMO a sign of its attitude about popular culture.
It's not cluelessness; it's hostility, based on its belief
that the proper reader must base his/her values in
entertainment on a "decent" class system. "Nobody would ever
dream of looking to [Emerson] for movie ideas. Emerson was
all brain, no pulp."
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Jun 2007 EDT