Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
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". |
You amuse me. Your entire understanding of
pulp fiction derives from reading dictionary.com. What is more amusing is your pseudo-intellectualism, your verbosity, and your assumption that my views on Frankenstein were set in stone at the age of 11, never to evolve. No one denies the importance of Frankenstein or its modern day relevance (particularly with the medical profession). However, this was a pot-boiler, written by a novice writer in a matter of days. It was intended as entertainment, to put the chills up your spine, and yes to deal with some issues rife at the time in literature. In reality, there are very few works of fiction that could not be classified as pulp fiction.
Twit.