Pulp Fiction

[johnsemlak]

I agree, but comics are still trying to earn back the respectability that pulps had (i.e. more likely to be read by adults with less stigma). Comics also need to diversify more: we need more 'Y the Last Man's and fewer JLA cross-overs. Reading a pulp in the 30s was more akin to reading a Jackie Collins novel than reading a Donald Duck comic book.

Did pulps ever have respectibility in their day? You'd have to talk to people who lived at the time, but from what I read pulp fiction was regarded as utter trash by a great many people, and wasn't even touched by certain people. It was read by (and written for) adults, but I'm not sure that alone makes it respectible. Pulp fiction was unworthy of review by respected critics, and wasn't considered suitable reading for poeple of a certain education.

The term 'pulp' continues to carry negative connotations today.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Did pulps ever have respectibility in their day? You'd have to talk to people who lived at the time, but from what I read pulp fiction was regarded as utter trash by a great many people, and wasn't even touched by certain people. It was read by (and written for) adults, but I'm not sure that alone makes it respectible. Pulp fiction was unworthy of review by respected critics, and wasn't considered suitable reading for poeple of a certain education.

The term 'pulp' continues to carry negative connotations today.

Different age and time - pulp was for the masses, the workers, and less educated, the group that later became the middle class in the late 40s and 50s. Book Publishers limited themselves to the more high browed, books were not to be read and passed on but to be saved. These publishers looked down on the Pulp Publishers, which produced a book to be read, passed to some one else or even to be used in the outhouse , this changed because of sales, the masses were hungry for the stories!

Also don't underestimate the cross over power of the pulp book, first radio and then movies, the pulp stories were perfect for those medias.

 

[johnsemlak]

Different age and time - pulp was for the masses, the workers, and less educated, the group that later became the middle class in the late 40s and 50s. Book Publishers limited themselves to the more high browed, books were not to be read and passed on but to be saved. These publishers looked down on the Pulp Publishers, which produced a book to be read, passed to some one else or even to be used in the outhouse , this changed because of sales, the masses were hungry for the stories!

Also don't underestimate the cross over power of the pulp book, first radio and then movies, the pulp stories were perfect for those medias.

I think you hit the nail on the head about pulp being aimed at the working classes. The class divisions were much wider at the time, and the stigma associated with 'lower class' works was probably much larger.

I don't think mass market fiction of today, luch as Grisham or Collins, or whatever, has the same low stigma attached that pulp fiction did in the 30s. I think a lot of people viewed pulp fiction as many people view pornography today.

Could be wrong though, difficult comparisons to make.

 

[WizarDru]

Did pulps ever have respectibility in their day? You'd have to talk to people who lived at the time, but from what I read pulp fiction was regarded as utter trash by a great many people, and wasn't even touched by certain people. It was read by (and written for) adults, but I'm not sure that alone makes it respectible. Pulp fiction was unworthy of review by respected critics, and wasn't considered suitable reading for poeple of a certain education.

The term 'pulp' continues to carry negative connotations today.

Agreed. I meant more that pulps were like trashy romance novels, or watching an episodes of 'The Bachelor'. It's considered lowbrow, but it's considered fare for grown-ups. Comics, except in certain instances, don't have that same level of recognition. Despite the fact that the primary audience are college age readers, comics still bear the brunt as medium for the immature, in the mind of the general public.

You might be right about the pulp/porn relationship, but I tend to think that's a little too far in the other direction. The pulps never had the same level of circulation or stigma as that, from what I've read.

 

[mmadsen]

(As I said earlier...)

Sometimes "pulp" refers to heroic adventure stories (Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, the Shadow, Doc Savage, Zorro), typically printed in magazines made from cheap pulp paper, but also including cliffhanger serials and modern homages (Indiana Jones, Rocketeer, Sky Captain).

Other times, "pulp" refers to "hardboiled" detective and crime stories (Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Mickey Spillane) and the "film noir" movies based on those stories (Maltese Falcon).

And, of course, since we're discussing RPGs, we should recognize another sub-genre of pulp: weird tales, like H.P. Lovecraft's tales of terror and Robert E. Howard's and Clark Ashton Smith's early swords & sorcery stories.

Eberron refers to itself as fantasy noir and hopes to convey an image of dark alleys, intrigue, and suspense.

 

[ragboy]

I don't think mass market fiction of today, luch as Grisham or Collins, or whatever, has the same low stigma attached that pulp fiction did in the 30s. I think a lot of people viewed pulp fiction as many people view pornography today.

Mass market fiction _should_ have the same low stigma. Have you ever tried to read any of that drivel? Give me a good pulp book any day. At least they have absolutely no apologies and no pomp/circumstance attached to it. They were for quick, exciting reads and didn't make any excuses. Grisham, Dan Brown, Patterson....they have this high-brow reputation, but their fiction is weak, weak, weak.

 

[jmucchiello]

i don't think mass market fiction of today, luch as Grisham or Collins, or whatever, has the same low stigma attached that pulp fiction did in the 30s. I think a lot of people viewed pulp fiction as many people view pornography today.

Could be wrong though, difficult comparisons to make.

Pornography is too far in the negative direction for a valid comparison. Crime magazines carried more into the pornography direction than normal pulp stuff. But they were like an episode of Cops. Sometimes you have to pixelize the text to include it in the book.

For current day authors in the proper vein, I'd nominate Raymond Fiest. He admits that he write his riftworld books as good yarns. And that's all a good pulp story is. A wild adventure.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Wow, pulp is from the future? Since we're not even halfway through the first decade of this century....

Sigh...

All right, so I'm getting forgetful in my old age. Ya knew what I meant, though.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Agreed. I meant more that pulps were like trashy romance novels, or watching an episodes of 'The Bachelor'. It's considered lowbrow, but it's considered fare for grown-ups. Comics, except in certain instances, don't have that same level of recognition. Despite the fact that the primary audience are college age readers, comics still bear the brunt as medium for the immature, in the mind of the general public.

I don't know about comics; when the New York Times (which I have always found to be about two years behind the times, trend-wise) publishes a magazine cover story on the complex world of written-for-adults graphic novels, I'd say comics have hit their stride as mature fare even in the mind of the general public. (Fare for nerds, maybe, but still...)

Mass market fiction _should_ have the same low stigma. Have you ever tried to read any of that drivel? Give me a good pulp book any day. At least they have absolutely no apologies and no pomp/circumstance attached to it. They were for quick, exciting reads and didn't make any excuses. Grisham, Dan Brown, Patterson....they have this high-brow reputation, but their fiction is weak, weak, weak.

Say it, brotha'!

I think a lot of people viewed pulp fiction as many people view pornography today.

Not quite, as I gather from talking to older former-pulp fans (including one publisher). Pulp was sometimes used as a vehicle for some awfully racy stuff (both sex- and violence-wise), and I've no doubt that many a teenager's first glimpse of [stuff that Eric's grandma wouldn't like to read] was in the pulps, what with their short skirts, ripped bodices, and heaving bosoms, but there were certainly teens in the 30s and 40s who were able to read the stuff without having to hide it from their parents as a matter of course.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

btw: nice to see you, man. Were you away for a while, or had I just been missing the threads you were in?

Thanks. I've been too busy to frequent the boards very often, and get to post even more rarely nowadays. Good to see some familiar faces, especially those who remember me.