Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Cult Fiction: Popular Reading and Pulp Theory

Rate this book
Book.

262 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1996

Loading...
Loading...

About the author

Clive Bloom

54 books6 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
0 (0%)
4 stars
1 (6%)
3 stars
3 (18%)
2 stars
9 (56%)
1 star
3 (18%)
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Profile Image for Andrew.
Author 120 books58 followers
December 20, 2018
Quite enjoyed reading this despite it being a more academic read than my usual fare. The author makes such a strong call for pulp fiction to be cult fiction that the book might have been better titled 'pulp fiction'. Whilst there is a semi-chronological study between chapters of the rise of the printing press as a conduit for the popularity of cult fiction, each chapter often feels dumped in its own right, and some of the connections are sparse at best. The author obviously also has a disdain for feminist criticism (at least, in my reading), which reared it's head now and again. Generally though, he feels well informed.

Whilst Cult Fiction discusses books in broad terms, there are chapters devoted to certain works/authors within a historical contest (the Fu Manchu novels, Lovecraft, a few pages on the Hank Janson trial, writings around Jack The Ripper and how those have permeated til the present day). I tended to find these of most interest.

The final chapter wraps it up rather quickly, and there is a discernible change in style as the author fires quotable phrases at the reader - whether deliberately or otherwise - mimicking the style of pulp, so that his conclusion that literary criticism (with postmodern theory being inherently nostalgic towards pulp) is basically the new pulp/cult fiction in itself isn't exactly surprising, but does draw a satisfied smile in a work which can otherwise be quite dry.
Profile Image for Rich Musick.
4 reviews1 follower
January 27, 2014
In spite of large segments of incoherent rambling, it was a good introduction to pulp literature theory.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews