Superversiveness Reviewed!

From a blog:

The Good, the Pulp, and the Superversive – Introduction

Today I introduce a new, intermittent series here at Every Day Should Be Tuesday: The Good, the Pulp, and the Superversive.  With each post I will look at the work of a particular author or at a particular series and discuss how good it is, how pulp it is, and how superversive it is.

There is a basic human tendency, when you come across a label you find very useful, to start slapping it willy-nilly on everything you like.  The terms “pulp” and “superversive” get thrown around a lot by a lot of people who run in the same circles.  But, at the same time, they are distinct aspects of storytelling with a certain amount of tension between each other.  So I think it is useful to both attempt to define them and to attempt to distinguish between them.

A story can be good but be neither superversive nor pulp.  A story can be pulp but be neither superversive nor good.  A story can be superversive and good but not pulp.  A story can be all three (easier said than done).  A story can be none of the three (easy enough—the real trick is figuring out how to win awards for it).  And so on.  Think of it as a Venn diagram.

(I would argue for a larger overlap of Superversive and Good…but that’s just me. LJL(W) 

Read more…