by Dylan Jeninga
(Chicago, Illinois, USA)
Zendexor, just wanted to say that I've enjoyed your unreasonable comparisons, and I find no fault in comparing pulp adventures to classic literature. I've enjoyed the classics, but gotten more joy out of pulp, so why not make the comparisons? What matters, in the end, is how the literature affects the reader, no?
Now, one could argue that the classics are regarded as such because they have a strong point of view that is masterfully communicated, where even the best pulp novel might be lacking something to say. I say nonsense - perspective is always there, one simply has to look for it. Even if the perspective is merely "fun", there is nothing lesser in that!
So I say carry on with the unreasonableness, and to Pluto with the objections!
{Z: Hear, hear! Besides, in good old Merrie England at festivals they used to appoint a Lord of Misrule, didn't they - so round about this time I fool around to a cosmically comic or comically cosmic degree.
Also, a writer who is good enough can embody the virtues both of the classics and of the pulps - which is why I go on about C S Lewis so much.
Now, for any Hardy experts who may be reading this, let me set an undergraduate essay topic:
"Compare and contrast 'The Mayor of Casterbridge' by Thomas Hardy with 'At the Mountains of Madness' by H P Lovecraft. Evaluate the pressures of Wessex society in juxtaposition with the experience of being chased by a Shoggoth..."}
Comments for Unreasonable Fun
|
||
|
||