What I've noticed over time is that the literary-pulp combination with horror tends to be the most divisive kind of horror on the market today. Again, pretty nebulous (and horror leans pulpy by default), but the difference often comes down to how dense or stylistically-driven a work is and the delivery. On the other hand, anything pulp or pulpy is a bit more to the point, action-driven, and can be everything from pure junk food quality to something surprisingly well-constructed. It's a pretty nebulous definition, but that's literature for you. Whether it's in the wheelhouse of traditional literature (like Frankenstein, Dracula or classic Gothic texts) or heavily informed by literary movements (such as modernism and post modernism), these tend to lean on a combination of exploring ideas and experiences, with the plot facilitating this. Just for context, literary horror in this instance means horror texts that lean more towards traditional literature styles, story arcs, and denser forms of prose. In the past three or so years, I've read about 30 horror books that run the full range from gory trash to full blown classic literature, and having just finished The Fisherman last night, I've got some thoughts on a usually divisive mix: literary horror and pulp horror hybrids.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |