4 ms·
“The modern equivalent of pulp fiction…” is pulp fiction. It isn’t some antique term connoting a dross sui generis (as that’s an oxymoron). Pablum is literacy’s
by w0de0 3y ago
“The modern equivalent of pulp fiction…” is pulp fiction. It isn’t some antique term connoting a dross sui generis (as that’s an oxymoron). Pablum is literacy’s unalterable, insuperable attendant.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y agoIf we're going to be pedantic: No. Pulp fiction was fiction written for the popular pulp magazines of the 1900s through roughly the 1960s. Those magazines don't really exist anymore. The "modern equivalent of pulp fiction" -- which is to say, the modern equivalent of writing for the pulps, writing to earn a quick buck -- is self-publishing low-effort fare on Kindle Unlimited or something similar. So the guy you were responding to made an apt comparison, IMO. Interestingly, the pulps that are still hanging on -- like Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, and like various other fiction magazines -- are today characterized by a very high standard of literary quality. On average, miles better than the self-published Kindle Unlimited stuff that rates highly (for some reason) on Amazon.
- w0de0 3y agoThe medium doesn't matter: it's metonymy, pars pro toto. Pulp fiction remains pulp fiction despite literal pulp's retirement.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y agoI realize well how pedantic I am being, but let's say there are two ways to interpret the term "pulp fiction." (1) As a reference to the pulp stories on newsstand racks in the early-mid 20th century; (2) as you note, as a stand-in for low-quality mass-produced fiction. As such there should be absolutely no issue with somebody saying "modern equivalent of pulp fiction" -- because they're using the first definition. And it so happens that there is a perfect modern equivalent, which is essentially the author in OP's publishing style.