What's your definition of pulp?

[JPL]

Uh huh.
Sure they do.

If we're all just offering our opinions, there's no need to get a snarky attitude because Keith's definition differs from yours.

There's at the very least a considerable overlap between the common definitions of "pulp" and "swashbuckling," and intrigue and moral ambiguity are certainly aspects of noir. Whether any of these terms are strictly synonymous depends on how you define each...and genres are not always neatly defined.

Eberron is intended to encourage a style of play featuring that overlap between pulp and swashbuckling --- daring stunts, near misses, cliffhangers, sinister villains, larger-than-heroes. This style is encourage via new mechanics [including action points], and by citing various movies [many of which could be validly characterized as "swashbuckling" or "pulpy."]

Eberron also has numerous other characteristics [recounted by Henry] intended to invoke "the Pulp Era" --- since pulp [like swashbuckling] is closely associated with both a style and a particular millieu. It's "pulpy" by virtue of being in various geographical and historical respects analgous to the real world as depicted in the pulps of the 1920s-1940s.

To me, the only confusion as to what "pulp" is supposed to mean in this context is that both Sam Spade and Indiana Jones are in the mix. Both hard-boiled detective noir and cliffhanger adventures are called "pulp"...but it's two different --- and even contradictory --- styles.

 

[madelf]

All right, if we want to define pulp as everything ever printed on cheap paper then the term is really meaningless. While accurate, it really doesn't say anything.

There are many genres that were published in "pulp" magazines. There was adventure. There was also horror, western, fantasy, hardboiled detectives, romance, and apparently there was even swashbuckling.

But (using my personal definitions at least)
HP Lovecraft isn't pulp adventure.
Westerns aren't pulp adventure.
Conan isn't pulp adventure
Hard boiled detective fiction isn't pulp adventure.
And romance stories are definitly not pulp adventure.
Swashbuckling stories are not pulp adventure either (though they share a lot of similar themes, the time period throws it off)

All of those may have been in magazines printed on pulp paper, but they aren't pulp adventure. They are genres in their own right, with their own terms. Doc Savage and Philip Marlowe are not within the same genre. And neither, I suspect, is Captain Blood.

And it's really funny to me when something gets billed as "pulp noir adventure", as pulp adventure and noir are almost mutually exclusive in my mind.

To me pulp adventure is the bright eyed optimistic hero story, larger than life characters (often pratically superheroes), over the top villains, just plain fun adventure stories where the good guy always wins.
Doc Savage and the Rocketeer are pulp adventure heroes.

Noir fiction (or hardboiled if you prefer) is almost the dead opposite of pulp adventure. It's not an adventure, it's a struggle. The main characters are common, flawed individuals struggling to do the right thing in a harsh and dirty world that doesn't give a damn about their good intentions. Noir revels in gloom and pessimism with just that little glimmer of hope embodied in the little guy that does the right thing no matter how much he gets busted down for it. And even when he wins, it feels like something was lost. Nothing like pulp adventure at all.
Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade are noir heroes.

Maybe that helps to figure out where I'm coming from?

 

[madelf]

If we're all just offering our opinions, there's no need to get a snarky attitude because Keith's definition differs from yours.

There's at the very least a considerable overlap between the common definitions of "pulp" and "swashbuckling," and intrigue and moral ambiguity are certainly aspects of noir. Whether any of these terms are strictly synonymous depends on how you define each...and genres are not always neatly defined.

Eberron is intended to encourage a style of play featuring that overlap between pulp and swashbuckling --- daring stunts, near misses, cliffhangers, sinister villains, larger-than-heroes. This style is encourage via new mechanics [including action points], and by citing various movies [many of which could be validly characterized as "swashbuckling" or "pulpy."]

Eberron also has numerous other characteristics [recounted by Henry] intended to invoke "the Pulp Era" --- since pulp [like swashbuckling] is closely associated with both a style and a particular millieu. It's "pulpy" by virtue of being in various geographical and historical respects analgous to the real world as depicted in the pulps of the 1920s-1940s.

To me, the only confusion as to what "pulp" is supposed to mean in this context is that both Sam Spade and Indiana Jones are in the mix. Both hard-boiled detective noir and cliffhanger adventures are called "pulp"...but it's two different --- and even contradictory --- styles.

You've obviously never seen me snarky.
Will a smiley help?


Seriously, I'm not copping an attitude. I'm just sayin... y'know?

 

[woodelf]

I'll tell you what I see that supports the style better than some other genres:

• A recent global war that has changed the political and social climate. What the Great War did for the real world, the Last War does for Khorvaire. Pulp stories and noir film were born from the grittiness and horror that Global War (and later reinforced by the Great Depression) showed the populace, couple with a deep optimism about both the future and the need for new heroes to appear.
• Pulp heroes took dark steps at times to forge brighter outcomes. They knew the darkness of the world, and were not afraid to delve into it in order to conquer it. The restructuring of the role of alignment and religion in Eberron helps to let the same conditions to come about. The Cleric of the Silver Flame who isn't afraid to flame strike a cruel criminal and let him burn to death in the purifying burn of the Silver Flame evokes the same kind of dark bravado that the 1930's Batman used to do to make criminals rat each other out. (Remembers an early issue of Detective Comics where batman is pouring acid on a criminal's lifeline to make him talk)

This one has two very different expressions in pulp and noir, IMHO. In the adventure pulps, sure, the "heroes" often did things that, by modern standards, are morally questionable. Some of them (much of what The Spider and The Shadow did) were questionable by contemporary standards, too--i'll go out on a limb and say that Doc Savage's brain surgery was seen as enlightened generosity (vice prison/corporal punishment/execution), comparable to curing an addict of an addiction, in modern terms. But, and i think this is an important defining characteristics, this didn't call their hero-ness into question. If you're wearing the White Hat and beat information out of an innocent Indian, you're no less the Good Guy. It's a simplistic morality where the good guys are the good guys, because they oppose the bad guys--it's not a morality where you are good because of your means, just your ends. Ends justify the means, almost without exception--and most of the stories manage to sidestep the "kill baby Hitler" type questions, in order to better portray this style of morality.

Contrast that with noir, where the heroes once again do things that are of questionable morality by contemporary standards. But the difference is that doing so raises moral questions, rather than sidestepping them. Noir explores the question of whether you're really the good guy if you do all these bad things. Casablanca is an excellent example: you question whether anybody is truly a "hero", and most of the characters are acting in a morally-ambiguous area where they are neither hero nor villain. Sam Spade is definitely the protagonist, but he's not clearly a Good Guy--he might be merely a lesser evil.

Or, in short, i think it is reasonable to say that noir says "we all do bad things, so are any of us actually Good?" while adventure pulps say "we all do bad things, but the Good Guys only do them in service of a Greater Good". Pulps put ends first, noir puts means first, when analyzing morality. At least, that's my thumbnail analysis.

• Pulp heroes were also characterized by unique qualities that made them above the common man - if nothing more than a willingness to roll up his sleeves and not stand for it. Eberron PC's are definitely characterized by the fact that they can and WILL rise above the other movers and shakers of the world.

Sure. But isn't that also true of sword-n-sorcery, high fantasy, Arthurian tales, and supers, among other genres? In other words, does that quality really differentiate Eberron from any other D&D setting, or just D&D play in general?

The qualities I noted above - the Effects of the War and the Depression and the desire for strong heroes - is a powerful force to the success of the then-new medium of pulp adventure tales. Although I don't want to delve into it too deeply, some critics have said that the recent global recession of several years back coupled with world events was actually responsible for a mini-renaissance of the Pulp Heroic ideals - in this day and age, people want heroes who recognize the realities but still have the power to deal with them in a black-and-white way, just like the heyday of pulp and noir in the 20's and 30's. Read into it however much credence you wish, though - while I can see it, others will not agree. I won't deny that heroic and fantasy movies are currently experiencing a nice little rebirth, though.

And, at least in the US, a lot of people apparently are comforted by B&W morality, where one can clearly identify Good Guys and Bad Guys, and where the Good Guys can do bad things without calling their Good Guy status into question. That's certainly had an impact on politics, so i'd expect it to have an impact on entertainment.

 

[woodelf]

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.

Well, the problem is that "pulp" isn't, properly, a genre--it's a medium. Trying to make accurate generalizations about pulp stories is like saying "animation is for children"--it's, at best, true of a subset.

Now, when most people say "pulp" these days, they mean the adventure pulps: precursors to supers, and, IMHO, inheritors of the Victorian adventure story (Verne, et.al.)--Doc Savage, Tarzan, Lone Ranger, The Shadow, The Spider, The Avenger, The Phantom, etc. But pulps were either the birth or flowering of supernatural horror, modern detective fiction, and sword-n-sorcery, among other genres. And, as an example of where this matters, detective pulps decidedly did not subscribe to the B&W morality of the adventure pulps, and instead are the precursors of the morally-ambiguous film noir genre.

That said, prior to this thread, i'd never heard "pulp" used to refer to hardboiled detective stories, or anything of the sort. Yes, properly it does--but in the proper sense, it isn't a genre, and tells you nothing about the content, instead describing only the medium. I've always heard "pulp" used either to describe the medium, in a historical sense, or to refer specifically to the adventure pulps, in a genre sense.

As for what Eberron is or isn't: dunno. Haven't read it. The "distancing" of the gods, thus allowing out-of-alignment clerics to still have spells, etc., might be a step in the direction of the moral ambiguity of noir. The action points certainly seem to be more pulp-ish, if anything. But other than that, it seems like there's not much of either genre beyond someone saying those genres are incorporated. And, IMHO, to really reflect the moral ambiguity of noir, you'd have to ditch alignment, or at least eliminate all techniques for characters to detect it. So long as the characters and players can unambiguously say "this guy is Good; that one is Bad", i don't think you can accurately capture the noir feel.

 

[Turanil]

Also... If you had to pick one movie, what one absolutely defines the pulp genre for you (and why)?

Indiana Jones - archetypal pulp hero for me.

Sergio Leone's Westerns - Lee Van Cliff and Clint Eastwood types of Gunslingers seem pulp heroes to me.

 

[woodelf]

"Pulp" means different things depending on the context.

In an RPG context, it's usually shorthand for 1920s-1940s hero/adventure pulp [Doc, Shadow, etc.], cliffhanger serials of the same era, and modern-day homages/adaptations of the same [Indy, Sky Captain, etc.]

Reanjr offers another equally valid usage for "pulp," but "shocking, horrid, or sensational subject a la Tarentino's Pulp Fiction" is clearly not what Eberron sets out to model...especially given the list of inspirational films cited in the setting book.

Eberron mixes things up by introducing some "pulp noir" elements...unlike the Indy school of pulp, this style is all about moral ambiguity and flawed heroes. Since this genre is also simply called "pulp," it gets a bit confusing.

Huh? "pulp noir"? isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms? i mean, pulp is mostly about the sort of B&W morality of our administration (or the Hollywood Western): i'm the good guy, regardless of what i do, and he's the bad guy regardless of his motives. Noir is very much about the shades-of-gray morality of questioning the balance of means and ends, and exploring what exactly makes someone the "good guy"--or if there even can be such a person.

It is a game with elements of pulp and noir, but look back at the movies referenced as inspiration, and you'll see Name of the Rose, Henry V, The Three Musketeers, and Brotherhood of the Wolf alongside Indy. Because it captures the mood of Indiana Jones or The Maltese Falcon does not mean that it is a parody of these movies -- the detective with pointy ears. Again, look to the artwork that's been released, and notice the lack of trenchcoats and fedoras. "Pulp and noir" is easier to say than "swashbuckling adventure and intrigue" -- but in this case, both mean the same thing.

Huh? I'll give you "swashbuckling adventure and intrigue" as a reasonable definition of "adventure pulp", which is what most people mean when they say "pulp"--we tend to gloss over the breadth of material that comprised the true pulps. But what does any of that have to do with "noir", presumably as in "film noir"--a genre characterized by moral ambiguity, a frequent lack of pure-hearted goodguys, fairly realistic depictions of violence, general pessimism, and a decided lack of over-the-top swashbuckling?

Friend found this at http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Film Noir.html :

Both literary and cinematic noir are defined by: (i) the subjective point of view; (ii) the shifting roles of the protagonist; (iii) the ill-fated relationship between the protagonist and society (generating the themes of alienation and entrapment); and (iv) the ways in which noir functions as a socio-political critique.

I've not seen references to any of that in the stuff i've read about Eberron. Again, if anything, it seems like noir and pulp are antithetical, and, IIRC, it would be reasonable to assert that one of the things film noir was reacting against was the simplistic morality and generally-optimistic tone of the sort of literature found in the adventure pulps.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, the problem is that "pulp" isn't, properly, a genre--it's a medium.

And Saturday-morning cartoon isn't a genre either -- but we can immediatley rattle off all sorts of characteristics belonging to Saturday-morning cartoons, well beyond their air-time and animated nature.

Certainly "pulp" can refer to the medium, and certainly it's vague as a genre-descriptor, but it can describe a genre.

Now, when most people say "pulp" these days, they mean the adventure pulps: precursors to supers, and, IMHO, inheritors of the Victorian adventure story (Verne, et.al.)--Doc Savage, Tarzan, Lone Ranger, The Shadow, The Spider, The Avenger, The Phantom, etc.

Actually, I don't think that's true. I think most gamers see it that way, but the rest of the world is just as likely to think "hardboiled" as "adventure".

That said, prior to this thread, i'd never heard "pulp" used to refer to hardboiled detective stories, or anything of the sort.

If you look up "pulp" on Amazon, the very first result is The Mammoth Book of Pulp Fiction, a compilation of hardboiled crime stories:

All the suspense, shocks, kicks, and titilation of yesterday's pulp magazines returns with a vengeance in these pages. Action-packed stories featuring hit men, underworld bosses, rogue cops, private dicks, and shady ladies are assembled here, written by such renegade authors as Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Ed McBain, Jim Thompson, James Ellroy, Robert Bellum, and Ed Gorman.

 

[ragboy]

Here's how Lester Dent (of Doc Savage fame) defines pulp. Seems to fit to me. Also a very nice resource for writing...

http://www.miskatonic.org/dent.html

 

[Viking Bastard]

For me it's simple. There's a certain style to the 30s/40s pulp adventure fiction
just as there's a certain 60s flavour to 60s comedies and 80s flavour to the 80s
action movies. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is, but it's there.

If I feel that a certain work of fiction captures that flavour to such a degree
that it overshadows other influances, it's Pulp.

It's like asking what chicken tastes like. It just tastes like chicken. I know the
taste of chicken because I've eaten a lot of chicken through the years. I can't
really explain what chicken tastes like. Not without comparing it to something
similar, like Turkey, and hope that the one I'm explaining it to has ever tasted
Turkey. Chicken can be cooked well and badly, and the quality of meat varies,
but unless it's gone really bad or overseasoned, you can always identify the
taste of chicken.