Warlock (1959)

[Paul Mackin]

On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Dave Monroe wrote:

> This is a good point ...
>
> --- Mike Weaver <mike.weaver at zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Difference is there is no continuum twixt shit &
>> shinola, like there is between pulp and lit....


Yes, I take Mike's point. (and happy hols to all according to their  
persuasion--love those abbreviations)

Can we now define "pulp" as low writing carried to a stylized degree  
reminiscent of those days of true American pulp fiction?

In which case, probably few if any books published today can be  
described as pulp per se, but as at most containing SOME pulp.  And  
let it be further noted that this latter circumstance may in no way  
necessarily bar said book  from literary greatness.





>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com