Quote:
Originally Posted by j. d. worthington  Have to disagree with you there, Connavar. There is very much such a thing as modern pulp, just as there is modern gothic (whether it be the "gothic romance" or another type of tale in the gothic tradition). Brian Lumley, for example, is often very much "pulp" in his writing -- the same earmarks of excess, verve, sometimes slipshod in construction, given to many of the pulp conventions, very much larger than life, tending toward bold, even crude, strokes rather than subtlety and intimation, etc. While "modern pulp" isn't identical with the original pulps (any more than they were identical to the penny dreadfuls or shilling shockers), it is very much in the tradition of, and thus it's a perfectly applicable cognomen. |
Im not saying there arent modern pulp but i think its wrong using on modern Hardboiled/Noir crime. I have read Westlake and many modern crime writers that have nothing to do with pulp conventions but are mentioned as pulp fiction. I hate reading that. Everyone thats different from police procedural,suspense,cosy or another type mainstream crime is suddenly pulp.
Im talking in relevance to crime fiction. Not other genres.