And the saddest thing is that the misusers might choose to cite this blurb as an example of "pulp" covering more than pulps...though I take (Lester Del Rey? Harry Harrison?) to mean that he worked for the range of the pulps after the TRIBUNE.
Though also amusing that digests are lumped in with paperbacks in this series, which I take you to be doing in full knowledge of the difference and not furthering anyone's condescension and cheerful ignorance...
Yes, I do know the difference, and I included it because I hate changing the title of the post. I kind of liked the Oban info, so I stuck this one in there hoping nobody would notice.
Oh, I wasn't being cagey (even it that did ring with too much asperity, sorry)--I know you know (and this wasn't the first magazine you've listed with these, I think) and that Orban bio (was it Harrison or Del Rey?) is worth the look--why, newspapers were pulps too! So Say We All!...those who irritate me are those that don't know the difference and aren't simply keeping a sort of consistency for searching out info in their blogs, but who think they're being madly hip in their ignorance or are simply kowtowing to that widespread ignorance ("doncha know all Democrats are socialists" would be another example...even Ron Paul has managed to argue with that one, and get booed and hissed for the trouble of actually trying to use the language correctly rather than the way lazy folks want it to mean). It's only "important" when the misuse is actively used to distort, as it so often is.
I was just kind of kidding you, Todd. I've used some IF covers before here, as I recall. Maybe others. I've given up in the battle of defining "pulp" because the headlines I link to sure don't use it the way you and I do.
4 comments:
And the saddest thing is that the misusers might choose to cite this blurb as an example of "pulp" covering more than pulps...though I take (Lester Del Rey? Harry Harrison?) to mean that he worked for the range of the pulps after the TRIBUNE.
Though also amusing that digests are lumped in with paperbacks in this series, which I take you to be doing in full knowledge of the difference and not furthering anyone's condescension and cheerful ignorance...
Yes, I do know the difference, and I included it because I hate changing the title of the post. I kind of liked the Oban info, so I stuck this one in there hoping nobody would notice.
Oh, I wasn't being cagey (even it that did ring with too much asperity, sorry)--I know you know (and this wasn't the first magazine you've listed with these, I think) and that Orban bio (was it Harrison or Del Rey?) is worth the look--why, newspapers were pulps too! So Say We All!...those who irritate me are those that don't know the difference and aren't simply keeping a sort of consistency for searching out info in their blogs, but who think they're being madly hip in their ignorance or are simply kowtowing to that widespread ignorance ("doncha know all Democrats are socialists" would be another example...even Ron Paul has managed to argue with that one, and get booed and hissed for the trouble of actually trying to use the language correctly rather than the way lazy folks want it to mean). It's only "important" when the misuse is actively used to distort, as it so often is.
I was just kind of kidding you, Todd. I've used some IF covers before here, as I recall. Maybe others. I've given up in the battle of defining "pulp" because the headlines I link to sure don't use it the way you and I do.
Post a Comment