View Single Post
Old 12-07-2010, 04:45 PM   #15
bill_mchale
Wizard
bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,450
Karma: 1550000
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Device: Nook Simple Touch, HPC Evo 4G LTE
I know I don't blame pulps. Many of the books that are considered classics now, were considered pulps in their day -- particularly with 19th century literature. As far as I can tell, what celebrates a pulp from a classic is whether or not a literature professor decides to write articles about it.

Yes some authors are trying to write art and some are trying to make a sale, but authors from both categories have been classified as literature (and indeed up until relatively recently, even the authors who were trying to write art were trying to reach a popular audience as well).

I just find an interesting contrast between two relatively popular art forms.

In writing, literature critics will praise a writer for the style of the writing.

In movies, movie critics will praise an actor who is never caught acting.

I definitely am in the latter category. I can't stand a work where the style of the author gets in the way of the story. Oh right, and I also have no patience for those who believe that story and art can't coexist in a novel.

--
Bill
bill_mchale is offline   Reply With Quote