I think Server's Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers is
pretty good in what it does (except for bibliographies; but I
don't think there's a big audience for these) and Server's
comments on authors he knows well are well-written and
interesting, but it's also a huge letdown. Apart from Mark's
comments, I can't help but wonder about Jeffrey Archer and
Barbara Cartland and other entries of the best-seller kind.
What "pulp"? Given Server's criteria, defining "pulp" could
be even worse than defining "noir".
Juri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Oct 2007 EDT