Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kristian
When it comes to horror, stories and writing, I never kid.
You wrongly take pulp fiction to be a derogatory term. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are works of fiction produced with a mass-market in mind, stories whose intent is to tell a good tale, evoke emotion, titilate the senses. Practically every modern novel falls into this category, as do many of the great classics, such as Frankenstein.
|
Main Entry: pulp fiction
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: sensationalized, poor-quality writing
Etymology: from its being printed on rough pulpy paper
Usage: informal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pulp%20fiction
Sorry, but it
is a derogatory term. Pulp fiction is Danielle Steel, Robert Jordan, Michael Crichton, John Grisham, Anne Rice, etc. Pure entertainment, the equivalent of most Hollywood genre-movies.
That isn't to say that this type of writing doesn't occasionally produce timeless classics (e.g. The Hound of the Baskervilles). However, perhaps its most important overall characteristic is its lack of philosophical and literary pretensions. Frankenstein, however, quite clearly does concern itself with these things. For example, it delves into the concept of man being shaped by society, explores some of the ideas of Rousseau and Milton, incorporates ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft (Mary Shelley's mother, who wrote A Vindication on the Rights of Women), etc.
You read it when you were 10 or 11, and it is understandable that at that age, it read like a simple, well-written horror story. However, there is a lot beneath the surface, and that clearly distinguishes it from "pulp fiction".