|
Doctor Faustine posted:I prefer the term “pulp” to mean “thing bad” and “literary” to mean “thing good,” where either can be applied to any genre. So within fantasy you’d have pulp fantasy (Sanderson, Gurm, Rothfuss, honestly most fantasy because most fantasy sucks rear end) and literary fantasy (LeGuin, Peake). And naturally some poo poo that’s kind of in the middle. I think there’s definitely such a thing as enjoyable pulp and bad “literary” fiction but I agree with you in terms of having a spectrum of pulp<->literary to classify genre books based on style, quality of prose, etc. Otherwise you end up in impossible situations where you are calling The Yiddish Policeman’s Union and The Plot Against America literary fiction and The Man in High Castle genre even though they’re all alt-history. Or you have to tie yourself in knots avoiding calling The Buried Giant fantasy even though it has dragons and swords and King Arthur.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Xotl, that was great. Thank you! E: If one were to read one MacDonald book, I take it that The Executioners would be the best / most representative sample? uberkeyzer fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Mar 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2019 03:45
|
|