|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jun 16, 2021 11:06:13 GMT
I did not know that this existed. Lee Server, ed., Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers: The Essential Guide to More Than 200 Pulp Pioneers and Mass-market Masters (Facts on File, 2002). It is available here and elsewhere online: archive.org/details/encyclopedia-of-pulp-fiction-writers/page/n3/mode/2up While it is erratic, e.g., there's an entry on Ray Bradbury but none on Robert Bloch, it is worth flipping through.  I can't access the back cover. Who is that between Ray Bradbury and Ian Fleming? Is it the dread Jackie Collins when young? |
|
|
|
Post by šrincess šµuvstarr on Jun 16, 2021 11:55:42 GMT
I did not know that this existed. Lee Server, ed., Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers: The Essential Guide to More Than 200 Pulp Pioneers and Mass-market Masters (Facts on File, 2002). It is available here and elsewhere online: archive.org/details/encyclopedia-of-pulp-fiction-writers/page/n3/mode/2up I can't access the back cover. Who is that between Ray Bradbury and Ian Fleming? Is it the dread Jackie Collins when young? Yes, it's Jackie Collins aged 18 or 19. Young aspiring actress in the full glow of youth. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jun 16, 2021 12:16:42 GMT
I did not know that this existed. Lee Server, ed., Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers: The Essential Guide to More Than 200 Pulp Pioneers and Mass-market Masters (Facts on File, 2002). It is available here and elsewhere online: archive.org/details/encyclopedia-of-pulp-fiction-writers/page/n3/mode/2up I can't access the back cover. Who is that between Ray Bradbury and Ian Fleming? Is it the dread Jackie Collins when young? Yes, it's Jackie Collins aged 18 or 19. Young aspiring actress in the full glow of youth. And not so dread then. |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jun 16, 2021 12:25:56 GMT
Yes, it's Jackie Collins aged 18 or 19. Young aspiring actress in the full glow of youth. And not so dread then. Just last week I read my first Jackie Collins novel, HOLLYWOOD WIVES. I would not say it is good, exactly, but it is perfectly readable and not what I expected. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jun 16, 2021 12:34:44 GMT
Just last week I read my first Jackie Collins novel, HOLLYWOOD WIVES. I would not say it is good, exactly, but it is perfectly readable and not what I expected. I'd expect sub-literate muck. |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jun 16, 2021 12:50:44 GMT
Just last week I read my first Jackie Collins novel, HOLLYWOOD WIVES. I would not say it is good, exactly, but it is perfectly readable and not what I expected. I'd expect sub-literate muck. I expected "romance," as Wikipedia describes her as a "romance novelist," but I was unable to detect any. |
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Jun 17, 2021 7:56:54 GMT
The acknowledgments certainly suggest it may be worth a look.
Oh dear - I've just looked at the Lovecraft entry, and it reproduces the spurious quote that purports to sum up his work.
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 17, 2021 10:37:04 GMT
The acknowledgments certainly suggest it may be worth a look. Oh dear - I've just looked at the Lovecraft entry, and it reproduces the spurious quote that purports to sum up his work. The Lovecraft entry is needlessly horrible, especially for 2002, and the omission of Bloch is inexcusable. Others are just baffling. Guy N.Smith, but no Lawrence James? Philip Atlee, but no Davis Dresser? The crime novel entrys are better written and more interesting than the rest. |
|
