Alan Stone states his thesis as “Pulp Fiction is already building a cult following, even as its mother-fucker language and graphic violence offends others” (610). Much like Tarantino’s film, Stone’s article biases toward an audience with a high level of tolerance for violence, sick humor, and strong language and his ideas jump around like the scenes in the movie and leave the reader confused with poor organization.
Right from the introduction paragraph, people have the potential to put down the article. The first line almost attacks the readers personality with “If you take no pleasure in popular culture, with all its manic excess, then you are likely to be bewildered, even offended, by Quentin Tarantino’s extraordinary film, Pulp Fiction” (Stone 610). Not only does Stone use bias with the negative connotation words like bewildered and offended, but also he shows his own enjoyment in it by saying how ‘extraordinary’ Pulp Fiction was to him. Within twenty words of the paper, you can already tell that Stone supports Tarantino’s overkill of violence and excess. In paragraph twelve, the author claims that:
If violence is a form of pornography, then, like pornography, it presents the same problem of line-drawing between exploiting our passions and edifying them. But as our modern courts have recognized, it is necessary to go beyond that simple categorical distinction and ask whether an admittedly exploitive work of art has redeeming social value. (Stone 613)
Since when has man learned anything educational from pornographic material? And what does pornographic material have anything to do with excessive violence, or have any positive social value? Stone even included in paragraph twenty that Tarantino’s film “is politically correct. There is no nudity and no violence directed against women…” (614) when just earlier he compared Pulp Fiction ’s excessive violence to pornography which is based on sexual relations of some...