Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Jane Austen was considered pulp. So was Charles Dickens. And Conan Doyle.

Nobody considered those high literature back in the day!



That cherry picks the best of the best without comparing them with the other 99.9% of their contemporaries who were pulp authors. They and their literary output are forgotten for good reasons.


I don't think GP is cherrypicking anything; rather, illustrating how what is seen as slop one day may be seen as "great works" down the road.


Are you suggesting Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, or Conan Doyle were considered slop during their own lifetimes? If not, my point stands.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: