“lurid, exploitative, and sensational subject matter”
Nope, not a pithy framing of social media, but the definition of a genre of serialised storytelling from the last Century, known as pulp fiction.
Pulp was named after the cheap paper it was printed on - seems a bit unfair to hang the blame of the message on the medium (but we can’t resist that can we?) - and was hugely popular.
Much was penned by authors who rose without a trace and have passed likewise into history, but now famous writers also wrote pulp - Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, for example - so proving there’s nothing quite so powerful as populist publication to help you find an audience.
Now all our stories (and most of your news) comes from the new pulp authors writing to their audiences on the new pulp medium of social channels. Cheap. Fleeting. Disposable. Social media Is our pulp fiction.
Is that a bad thing?
Jumping back to writers, the contemporary pulp author James Patterson (of whom some have said is an author who isn’t a writer. Or a Writer - to capitalise the profession - that isn’t an Author) understands his audience and gives “them what they want and sell(s) the hell out of it”. His imprimatur shifts bucket loads of books which give the ‘proper’ publishing industry the horrors.
But, whatever. The pulping of professions seems to be something we simply accept now.
Better listen to celebrity than be bored by journalism. Get the machine to render the scene. Can’t wait for the artist to get their shit together.
And who cares if what we’re seeing is fake? My facts are your fictions anyway.
Apologies also for the rather dull article image but the genre's visual language... well, just not good.
