Re: Jennifer Croissant-- This is a grotesque, disassociated overreaction. To conflate the display of these 80 year old cover images with modern hardcore pornography is preposterous. You may dislike the lurid covers of this particular brand of antiquated pulp fiction, and that is fine. Generations of readers and arbiters of popular taste have found them somewhere between questionable and reprehensible. But they spring from a completely different era, a pre-internet, pre-television, pre-pornographic age. A pop culture in which one of the most shuddersome, alarming things an author might conceive was a cackling mad scientist in a cowl lurking in a gothic stronghold and concealing their illegal activities by pretending supernatural evil was at work. Against the callous, soulless banality of modern pornography they are like a painted rubber Frankenstein mask. An absurd relic of a simpler time.
And besides, Davy displays all manner of interesting oddities on his blog. The silly excesses of the shudder pulps are uncommon here. I trust his featuring of un-reprinted detective stories, 1950’s era toys, and little-known movies, does not inspire the same degree of mortification.
You know, Languishing in the Past ain't a bad name for blog. Since I won't be going the porno (and the truth and the future) route, maybe I should change it.
I say, keep up the good work. I enjoy my daily check in to see what you have to offer. I don't understand how this can be considered porno in this day and age. These covers are tame by today's standards of even prime time TV. And one can always click to another blog if this one is offensive to one's over sensitive moral standards...
Jennifer makes a lot of sense, where-as oakleyses is just indecipherable garbage.
ReplyDeleteRe: Jennifer Croissant-- This is a grotesque, disassociated overreaction. To conflate the display of these 80 year old cover images with modern hardcore pornography is preposterous. You may dislike the lurid covers of this particular brand of antiquated pulp fiction, and that is fine. Generations of readers and arbiters of popular taste have found them somewhere between questionable and reprehensible. But they spring from a completely different era, a pre-internet, pre-television, pre-pornographic age. A pop culture in which one of the most shuddersome, alarming things an author might conceive was a cackling mad scientist in a cowl lurking in a gothic stronghold and concealing their illegal activities by pretending supernatural evil was at work. Against the callous, soulless banality of modern pornography they are like a painted rubber Frankenstein mask. An absurd relic of a simpler time.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides, Davy displays all manner of interesting oddities on his blog. The silly excesses of the shudder pulps are uncommon here. I trust his featuring of un-reprinted detective stories, 1950’s era toys, and little-known movies, does not inspire the same degree of mortification.
Interesting POV, Jennifer, but is your name really Croissant?
ReplyDeleteThese remarks from oakleyses and jimmie are plenty swell, too.
But I am truly honored that Mr. Dashiell Hammett chose to return from the dead, albeit wearing a nom de plume, to defend Davy's honor.
Every high school kid had access to this stuff and it was just scary stories prior to the advent of modern porno.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Languishing in the Past ain't a bad name for blog. Since I won't be going the porno (and the truth and the future) route, maybe I should change it.
ReplyDeleteI say, keep up the good work. I enjoy my daily check in to see what you have to offer. I don't understand how this can be considered porno in this day and age. These covers are tame by today's standards of even prime time TV. And one can always click to another blog if this one is offensive to one's over sensitive moral standards...
ReplyDelete