Hi frens and fellows,

I love literature, and I have relished the works of Hardy, Tolstoy, Keats, Shelley, Milton, Jane Austen, Dan Brown, Arundhati Roy and other greats, and also occasionally read Chetan Bhagat and the like. However, I often hear the people say that the works of the next-gen authors like Chetan Bhagat and the like are PULP, while the works of the other 'greats' are LIT. As far as my judgement and the analysis is concerned, I presume that pulp is skin-deep, and does not leave any permanent mark on the mind of the reader, where as the LIT leaves an imprint, and also brings about a sort of transformation in your thinking, way of living or at least your personality. Moreover, literary works are multi-layered, while the pulp is unilateral.

Am I right? What are your preferences - pulp or lit? and WHY?

I like both. If I want a quick read for escape and momentary pleasure, I read "pulp." That might be noir Raymond Chandler-type detective stories/novels or some of the current bestsellers (am reading one of those now). If I want to challenge my brain and open my heart, I read what you call "lit."

Lit is the main course; pulp is the dessert.