Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kristian
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.
|
Actually, I used dictionary.com as an authorative source (which dictionaries tend to be regarding common definitions) to show you that your definition of the term "pulp fiction" is not the one commonly used. By coming up with your own definition of "pulp fiction" and then proceeding to use it as a blanket term covering almost all literature, you effectively remove any meaning your original post could have had. If just about all fictional literature is "pulp fiction", what point is there in even using the term?
Furthermore, since you said so explicitly you read it at 10 or 11, I assumed you only read it once. If that is the case, it is quite likely that you simply missed many of the references in the book, and even if your views have evolved, without reading it again there will simply be many things in the book you didn't recognize for what they were at the time of reading it. Now, assuming you read the book rather than memorizing it, it is near impossible that your views on the book developed to accomodate all those things you never actually saw in the first place.
Now, aside from that, what you said about the book being written in a matter of days is simply untrue. In fact, it took Mary Shelley almost a year to write, and the second version, which is the one most commonly read these days, was published over a decade later, and was heavily revised. Also, it should be quite clear from Mary Shelley's preface, in which she reminisces about the many memories she has from when she was writing the book, while her husband was still alive, that she spent more than "a few days" writing it.
Finally, judging from your original post in this thread, I believe you are the last person who should accuse anyone of pseudo-intellectualism. I am entirely convinced that by both mentioning to have read the book at a fairly early age, and then referring to it as "pulp fiction", your sole intention was to show yourself as a snobby intellectual.
However, your painful lack of knowledge quite clearly disqualifies you as an intellectual, therefore, you are exactly what you accused me of being: a pseudo-intellectual.
