Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/24896
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/24896
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I think the main difference between yesteryear classics and today's "literature," as you define it distinct from "pulp," is the attention span of the reader.

There are exponentially more inputs clamoring for our attention and less leisure time to spend it on. The instant-gratification nature of broadcast (radio, TV, Internet) has shortened our collective patience. We want satisfaction and we want it _now_. So writers must work harder and deliver a lot of little payoffs to keep an impatient reader entranced and holding on for the final blow at the end.

That's not to say that big overstuffed novels which meander to the end can't sell or aren't enjoyable today, but that these are rarer because the audience for that kind of narrative style is smaller.

Since you're differentiating between "literature" and "pulp," I might point out that the audience for "literature" is probably the very audience which has more patience, and preference, for the slow buildup and meandering plot. "Pulp" stories skip the beginning fluff and start in medias res because it's more interesting to cut to the good stuff.

* * *

On a separate note: I think the distinction introduced by @mbakeranalecta of "literature" and "pulp" is a false one. There are good books and crappy books. A good popcorn book is still a good book. A good beach read, airport distraction, or cheerfully trashy romance is still a good book. A crappy book is a book you don't want to finish or don't want to read again, period. Style, intended audience, length, content, even quality are irrelevant. For _me_, Dan Brown books are tripe, and I won't even pick up the _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo etc._ series, but for many people, they're great books and re-read and loved. And many of those readers would loathe the SFF I cherish. So how can you call one "literature" (good, enduring) and one "pulp" (bad, cheap, throwaway) when they don't have the same effect on everyone?

Original score: 1