"The "Pulp Era" Defined" Topic

Years ago, in this group, there was some argument about what "pulp gaming" is, and we eventually stopped discussing it because the term "pulp" is so nebulous that it can mean just about anything, and the Pulp Gaming group became a "catch all" for *any* sort of conflict gaming, but as time went on other groups, like Victorian, were formed for their fans, which left us to better define what our group is actually supposed to represent. As a result I used the term "pulp era" to separate us from other groups, avoid confusion, and to further pulp gaming. Since then, many rules sets have been written for gaming in the Pulp Era and they all agree with what the Pulp Era is.

Bob Murch's Rugged Adventures is subtitled "The miniatures game of manly adventure in exotic locals of the Pulp Era".

From Rich Johnson's .45 Adventure: Crime fighting action in the pulp era: "To begin, players should know how the author defines the pulp era. Though officially the era began in 1890 with Argosy Magazine, this game refers to the period between the two World Wars when pulp magazines were at their peak".

From Howard Whitehouse' Astounding Tales: "It's the world as seen in cheap magazines and low budget movies from the 1920's to sometime in the '50's when television and comic books took over".

My own definition expands on what they have written. The Pulp Era begins roughly at the time that the most famous pulp characters and stories were first published. Both Tarzan of the Apes and John Carter ("A Princess of Mars") appeared in 1912. The era ends in the 1950's when the last pulp magazines were published, radio drama almost disappeared, the "double feature" ceased to exist and, of course, the need for "B" movies ceased with them, serials were no longer produced, and the great sunday adventure comic strips were all but forgotten.

Pulp magazines, radio dramas like "The Shadow", "Same Spade – Detective" and "Philip Marlowe – Private Detective", "B Movie series characters like Charlie Chan, Mr. Moto, The Saint and The Falcon, serial chapter plays like "Spy Smasher", "The Crimson Ghost" and "Daredevils of the Red Circle", and comic strips like Terry and The Pirates and Jungle Jim, all were in their "golden age" between the two World Wars and all ceased to exist roughly at the same time in the mid-1950's.

It's notable that some of these characters, like Dick Tracy, The Shadow, Flash Gordon, Jungle Jim, Dick Tracy, Tarzan and Philip Marlowe all appeared in more than one of the mentioned fictional media. For instance The Shadow and Tarzan were both heard on the radio and appeared in comic books, comic strips, "B" movies, pulp magazines and serials during the Pulp Era. So these characters and the type of adventures they appeared in are all inspirational for pulp era gaming.

So how does this differ from Victorian? The Victorian Era ended in 1901 when she died.

End of discussion then. We can turn off the lights, lock the front door and go home.

As Justice Potter Stewart wrote when asked to define hard core pornography, "I know it when I see it".
You are wasting your time trying to define it.
You end up with circular definitions anyway.

If you are annoyed at what I wrote yesterday on another thread regarding you know who, we cannot even get people to post correctly to American Revolution Board, when they have battle reports or photos of painted George Washington.

Until we can FORCE people to post to the proper Boards, and no where else, any definition of what belongs on the Pulp board or the VSF Board, trying for definitions is an interesting exercise that will generate a lot of conflicting replies, but not really useful.

Is the Pulp Era solely a phenomena of the US and Great Britain? I am a fan of noir but I can't really call to mind books, films or comics from anywhere else. Perhaps some French films may fit the parameters but Pulp seems to be pretty much an English language thing.

BTW, I was buying Analog magazine, etc well into the 1970s. Why were they not pulp?

I also think that Star Wars/Trek are pulp. Tell me I am wrong and I will disagree, settling nothing.
So is Raymond Chandler, and he is considered "literature". Travis McGee? James Bond? Sherlock Holmes?

Horatio Hornblower was serialized in the Saturday Evening Post.
Sherlock Holmes was serialized in the Strand.
So were Dickens, Dumas, etc.

The more you try to force a definition, someone can always come along and ask "Yeah, but what about…?"

John the OFM

I don't think that you understand the purpose of my post. I'm separating "pulp fiction" from the "pulp era". pulp fiction defined as lurid and sensational fiction, as you correctly pointed out, is still being written. The pulp era is over, because pulp magazines are no longer being printed, and the cross overs between the various characters and typical adventures from that era no longer exist. You can argue the point forever, but there is no denying that pulp magazines, "B" movies, serials and radio dramas are gone.

>>I was buying Analog magazine, etc well into the 1970s. Why were they not pulp?<<

I didn't say that Analog isn't pulp. It's not a pulp magazine. It might be a pulp fiction magazine, but it's not a pulp magazine.

>>Horatio Hornblower was serialized in the Saturday Evening Post.
Sherlock Holmes was serialized in the Strand.
So were Dickens, Dumas, etc.<<

I really don't think that you know what a pulp magazine is.

>>If you are annoyed at what I wrote yesterday on another thread regarding you know who<<

This post has nothing to do with you. I didn't see your post, so i'm not sure who "you-know-who" is.

>>End of discussion then. We can turn off the lights, lock the front door and go home.<<

LOL. My last sentence *was* pretty abrupt, wasn't it.

Y'know what? My bad. I should have defined what a "pulp magazine: is in the first place. Here's as perfect a definition as I have found. From wiki:

Pulp magazines (often referred to as "the pulps") are inexpensive fiction magazines published from 1896 through the 1950s. The typical pulp magazine was 7 inches (18 cm) wide by 10 inches (25 cm) high, 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) thick, and 128 pages long. Pulps were printed on cheap paper with ragged, untrimmed edges.

The term pulp derives from the cheap wood pulp paper on which the magazines were printed. Magazines printed on higher quality paper were called "glossies" or "slicks". In their first decades, pulps were most often priced at ten cents per magazine, while competing slicks were 25 cents apiece. Pulps were the successor to the penny dreadfuls, dime novels, and short fiction magazines of the 19th century. Although many respected writers wrote for pulps, the magazines are best remembered for their lurid and exploitative stories and sensational cover art. Modern superhero comic books are sometimes considered descendants of "hero pulps"; pulp magazines often featured illustrated novel-length stories of heroic characters, such as The Shadow, Doc Savage and The Phantom Detective.

John the OFM

I hope this helps.

I know exactly what a pulp magazine is. I used to collect them.

Trying to impose ANY definitions, particularly by decree, will not work here. Any definition from wiki is nothing but the result of what the last person to have edited it left behind. Why is that authoritative?

If you are going to define by what was in "pulp" magazines, you will end up with anything from Conan to Cthulhu to cowboys to romance to E E "Doc" smith to boxing stories and a whole lot that I left out.

No other Board has had a definition imposed on it.
And yet, you are truing to impose one here. Why? And on whose authority?
You have not even asked for a Poll on it. You just tell us what YOU THINK IT IS, and expect us to accept it.

What is your motive? Is it to enforce that only "approved" threads/topics get started on the Pulp Message Board? Who is to enforce this? What if someone deliberately posts to Interwar a topic that by your definition should be under Pulp?

The Shadow, your Wiki definition says pulp magazines started in 1896, yet you start in 1912. Victoria died in 1901, so what era was in play from 1901 to 1912?

Is that Post-Victoria Science Fiction?
Or is in Inter-Period Pulp?

What about the overlap from 1896 to 1901? Is that Pre-Pulp? Or perhaps Late-Victoria Science Fiction?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

What about a game where they save Queen Victoria's brain, put it in a robot body and it "lives" into the interwar period?

Isn't that the plot for "Spock's Brain"?

If you are going to define by what was in "pulp" magazines, you will end up with anything from Conan to Cthulhu to cowboys to romance to E E "Doc" smith to boxing stories and a whole lot that I left out.

That's why I think 'Pulp' is a useless descriptor of flavor/genre. It's similar to Gamer-Speak terms like 'Cinematic'… which really only addresses a narrow band of action/adventure films… not movies in general.
'Pulp Era' is useful for stating the time period/worldview/tech-level of a setting.
The Pulps were just a medium, like TV and Radio.
I think the main reason folks resort to describing games as 'Pulp' is because of the garish covers that were often used (and that can be re-purposed to game art). Radio had plenty of exciting adventure plays, like I Love A Mystery, but no one is trying to issue games with 'Radio' stamped on the cover.

>>Trying to impose ANY definitions, particularly by decree, will not work here.<<

You're exaggerating. I didn't decree anything. I defined the pulp era as the era when pulp magazines existed. I don't see the argument.

>>Any definition from wiki is nothing but the result of what the last person to have edited it left behind.<<

Correct, but I haven't seen any contradiction on that page, because it's an accurate description.

>>Why is that authoritative?<<

I didn't say that it's authoritative. I said that it was "as perfect a definition as I have found", but if you have a better one, feel free to dispute it. I'm all ears.

"If you are going to define by what was in "pulp" magazines, you will end up with anything from Conan to Cthulhu to cowboys to romance to E E "Doc" smith to boxing stories and a whole lot that I left out".

I never defined what was in them. That statement doesn't even make sense. I mentioned a few characters and showed how they crossed over into other media during the same era, showing a strong relationship between those media. I bought and sold boxes full of pulp magazines when they were still inexpensive and I enjoy many of the different genres that were represented in "the pulps", so I have no idea what your point is.

>>No other Board has had a definition imposed on it.
And yet, you are truing to impose one here. Why? And on whose authority?<<

Well there it is folks. The "who died and left you boss" statement. We all knew *that* was coming. LOL

Where is this "our group" and "this group" talk coming from?
Those who post to other TMP Message Boards, or lurk on them, do not refer to themselves that way.
On Yahoo groups, maybe. But not here.

When and if the editor makes you the Editor of Pulp , maybe them you can impose a definition. But I will not bind myself by it, and I suspect that few others will either.

>>The Shadow, your Wiki definition says pulp magazines started in 1896, yet you start in 1912. Victoria died in 1901, so what era was in play from 1901 to 1912?<<

The first pulp magazine is considered to be "Argosy" which began printing in 1896, but it really didn't resemble the pulps that were printed between the wars. That magazine didn't have colorful cover art and illustrations until it later became Argosy All Story. The first very well known Pulp magazine characters, Tarzan and John Carter came along in 1912. The Pulp Era includes radio drama which started in the 1920's, movie serials starting in 1912, and "B" movies with the advent of the "double feature". It's the similar style and characters, which is very different than in the earliest pulp magazines, that help to define the Pulp Era.

>>When and if the editor makes you the Editor of Pulp , maybe them you can impose a definition. But I will not bind myself by it, and I suspect that few others will either.<<

Hooray for Democracy. Only I didn't *impose* a definition. I said, in short, that the Pulp Era is the era in which pulp magazines were published. Are you saying that that's not true?

I like the comparison with porn. Works for me.

I am saying that the era when pulp magazines were published is not as easy to pin down as you seem to think. You cannot simply define it by the quality of the paper. I am saying that if magazines act like they are pulp, then they quack like a duck.
I also do not like how you assume that everybody agrees with you and that everything is settled.

Btw, how many here in "our group" have agreed with you?

Jesus Christ, what a bunch of louts. No wonder TMP has a reputation in other gaming circles of being filled with thin-skinned arrogant blowhards.

Pathetic…

Shadow, I find your definition quite useful, informative, and erudite. And kudos for keeping it civil on your end.

When I see Penny dreadful's, dime novels and pulp magazines, is basically the grist for the whole pulp gaming community mills. I would also include any literature of a fictional nature that is not fantasy, that is includes magic and supernatural issues. That's all part of the fantasy gaming community.

The tent very big, so why do we need to even worry about it. There are lots of gamers today for creating pulps stories, that would've been great in those magazines in the old days. I don't worry too much about the definitions. Napoleonic warfare includes the war of 1812 in America almost nothing to do with Napoleon.

I see no "need" to define anything.
Particularly if the definition is a overly restrictive straight-jacket.

>>I am saying that the era when pulp magazines were published is not as easy to pin down as you seem to think.<<

Of course it is. The first pulp magazines were published in 1896 and the last in the mid-1950's.

>>You cannot simply define it by the quality of the paper.<<

Not completely and exclusively. The quality of the paper is cheap because the publishers, with some notable exceptions like Black Mask and Weird Tales, thought of their own published material as much less than timeless, and therefore wouldn't try to publish the material in "hardbacks" or "slicks", so they used the cheapest paper possible thinking that pulp magazines were disposable entertainment to be read and thrown away. Only a very few of the myriad authors who's work appeared in "the pulps" are well known today. The fact that I, and many others, enjoy *some* of the titles doesn't mean that most of the material wasn't junk. It's *fun* junk, but junk nevertheless. :-)

>>I am saying that if magazines act like they are pulp, then they quack like a duck.<<

No. They can be pulp fiction, but they can't be pulp magazines unless they are pulp magazines.

>>I also do not like how you assume that everybody agrees with you and that everything is settled.<<

I don't assume that everyone will agree with me, and nothing in a discussion group is ever settled.

>>Is the Pulp Era solely a phenomena of the US and Great Britain? I am a fan of noir but I can't really call to mind books, films or comics from anywhere else. Perhaps some French films may fit the parameters but Pulp seems to be pretty much an English language thing.<<

I've been dealing and collecting pulp magazines since the 1960's and the only other countries that I know of that produced anything like pulp magazines are Canada and the UK.

AcrylicNick

>>Shadow, I find your definition quite useful, informative, and erudite. And kudos for keeping it civil on your end.<<

Thanks for the props. Some are trying to get me into a silly flame war, but I won't bite. :-)

Since the radio and movies obviously count as Pulp, I don't really see a point in making a distinction between magazine types.

I agree that if someone were to say "pulp era"' I would think 1930's-ish at first. And I really wouldn't use "pulp era" to describe a Flash Gordon game, or a game set in the middle ages.

For a "pulp" definition, I would have to go with the "I know it when I see it" method, which most people use.

What "flame war"? All that my good friend Winston and I are saying is that definitions are meaningless (particularly yours) and less than useful.

Have fun. You are wrong and I am right.

Did someone beat the OFM's stifle score again?

>>What "flame war"? All that my good friend Winston and I are saying is that definitions are meaningless (particularly yours) and less than useful.<<

Thanks for your insight. But let me ask you a question. Are you saying that anyone should feel free to post anything that they want to in any group? And if that's so, why bother having separate groups?

I said, in short, that the Pulp Era is the era in which pulp magazines were published. Are you saying that that's not true?

While that is true, it also just doesn't work for me at all. Pulp magazines covered genres as diverse as fantasy to scifi and everything in between, including historical fiction and romance.

I really wish that my biggest issue of the day was getting upset because someone posted something that doesn't fit my definition of 'pulp' to the 'pulp' board. That really puts my mortgage, keeping the kids in school, taking care of my health and making a buck into perspective.

>>I really wish that my biggest issue of the day was getting upset because someone posted something that doesn't fit my definition of 'pulp' to the 'pulp' board. That really puts my mortgage, keeping the kids in school, taking care of my health and making a buck into perspective.<<

Who's upset?

People are already free to post anything they want anywhere they want. However if they want it to be useful, they post it where they themselves feel it will be useful.
There is nothing to prevent me from posting a review of "Rick Brant and the Flying Stingaree" in Napoleonic Discussion. Nothing but the fact that I would feel silly doing so, and the knowledge that out overworked editorial staff (God bless them !) would have to crosspost them to the appropriate Pulp Message Board.
Oh, what is that book? It is one of a series of books similar to the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift books, written in the 1960s. The Hardy Boys are Pulp. So is Rick Brant. Are you going to say that Tom Swift is not Pulp, btw?
Where would you place a review of a Hardy Boys RPG game? I would put it in Pulp, even though they were not in the pulp magazines. The best ones were written in the 1930s, though.

And to all the nervous nellies having the vapours over this, this not a "flame war". Good Lord. This is a disagreement. Get a grip.
The OFM and I simply reject the entire premise of this thread. We have not kidnapped each other's children!

I really don't see why anyone is up in arms about a definition? Is there something wrong with having a conversation about what something is?

It isn't like it is going to matter to who posts what where anyway.

Personally I think of the pulp era as that nebulous period between 1920 and 1939. But having said that I also consider things like Conan, Star Wars, and to a lesser extent Star Trek as pulp also. So pretty much anything can be described as pulp if you want to take a broad definition of it.

Interesting discussion though and more interesting to see everyone elses take on the matter.

All of this just tells me that Pulp gaming has its own version of the Napoleonic lace & button hole counting.

>>All of this just tells me that Pulp gaming has its own version of the Napoleonic lace & button hole counting.<<

Nope. Not at all. The pulp era group might be the least restrictive on TMP. The era spans about half a century and without duplicating other forums like Weird War II we discuss gangsters, explorers, smugglers, treasure hunters, bank robbers, military incursions, and adventure fiction from every known genre creating scenarios emulating situations that would have been typical in fiction or reality during that period of time. And nobody is going to tell you that Flash Gordon wouldn't carry a six shooter. :-)

I'm glad for this thread, but, although having read a fair amount of pulp from the 'golden age' described, I still feel wary of posting many topics that spring from the 'classic era' to this Board: not only Conan, but other Howard characters like Solomon Kane, or Burrough's planetary romance stories. Instead I just post them on fantasy and/or sci-fi…

So are the Pulp Boards really only for pulp-themed stories and minis set in the historical present (or recent past) of the 'pulp era'- roughly the late C19th to mid C20th?

I don't mind, but I'd like to know the majority's feelings on this. I already have a good sense of what the erudite here think!

I'm sorry, but I get the impression that you aren't reading everything that I posted. Or maybe you're just misunderstanding? Or maybe i'm misunderstanding you. So let me try again.

I never said, or implied, that what we discuss in the pulp gaming forum should only come from pulp magazines. What I *did* say was that pulp era fictional situations and characters in several different media are related, and that this close relationship has created it's own universe exclusive of other eras, but not of any particular form of fiction from that era.

>>Are you going to say that Tom Swift is not Pulp, btw?<<

As i've said before, many times and in many ways, "pulp" is too nebulous a word to be useful here. The terms "pulp fiction", "the pulps" and "fiction from the pulps" mean entirely different things. "Pulp fiction" means lurid and sensational fiction. It was originally coined by a book critic as a derogatory term meaning fiction that has no literary value. "Fiction from the pulps" means fiction that literally came from pulp magazines. "The pulps" were pulp magazines.

So are the Tom Swift novels "pulp fiction"? No. There's nothing lurid or sensational about them. They didn't originally appear in pulp magazines either. They are books aimed at children.

>>Where would you place a review of a Hardy Boys RPG game? I would put it in Pulp, even though they were not in the pulp magazines. The best ones were written in the 1930s, though.<<

I guess you'd put them in an RPG forum or a children's books forum somewhere.

I don't know anything about The Hardy Boys except that they were (are?) children's books about two boys with the last name of Hardy.

TwinMirror

IMHO, any adventure fiction that was published or released in pulp magazines, comic strips, on radio, in films, or any other media during the Pulp Era is fair game for this forum. Sometimes though, it doesn't make sense to duplicate another forum. If, for instance, someone wanted to discuss the "Gunfight at the OK Corral", or develop a scenario for it, my guess is that a better place would be the "Old West" forum. Even though several pulp era films were produced about it, there would be more interest in the "Old West" forum than here. Conan and Solomon Kane have such a strong presence for Fantasy fans *and* for fans of pulp era fiction that I believe a cross post between forums would be in order.

Ok, that's good to know. In future I'll crosspost R E Howard-related stuff (if it carries some sense of the pulp-era aesthetic) to the Pulp Boards.

And I agree, duplicating a thread on the Pulp board about the gunfight at the OK corral might be unneccessary, since it's primarily a C19th subject dealt with in terms of that century's own myth-making.

And now the grey area: do subjects like Lin Carter's post-Howard Conan and Conan/Kull-style pastiches count as suitable for the pulp board? Or later films based on pulp-era subjects, such as minis inspired by the late 80's Dick Tracy film?
To my mind they should count, since they're affectionate pastiches made by people who understand the genre style and conventions (however loose they might be, and however bad that film might be).

By this, I mean that caveman miniatures by Copplestone or Red Box are appropriately 'pulp era' pastiches and so suitable for the board…I hope others agree.

Where I think things go wrong is the inclusion on the Pulp boards of stuff like comic-book style tank-driving russian beauties with nose piercings and a pet manga-style dragon…just because she's in vaguely WWII costume, doesn't mean she's pulp. At least not to me.
Unless of course the great Editor sees fit to create a 'comicbook pulp' subforum…

So now they must be lurid and sensational…

TwinMirror

>>And now the grey area: do subjects like Lin Carter's post-Howard Conan and Conan/Kull-style pastiches count as suitable for the pulp board? Or later films based on pulp-era subjects, such as minis inspired by the late 80's Dick Tracy film?
To my mind they should count, since they're affectionate pastiches made by people who understand the genre style and conventions (however loose they might be, and however bad that film might be).<<

IMO, sure! The "Indiana Jones" films, "The Mummy" and "The Shadow" too!

>>Where I think things go wrong is the inclusion on the Pulp boards of stuff like comic-book style tank-driving russian beauties with nose piercings and a pet manga-style dragon…just because she's in vaguely WWII costume, doesn't mean she's pulp. At least not to me.<<

I agree 101%. :-)

So games based on Chtritia Faust's books about lesbian detectives & masked Mexican wrestlers set in the pre-war years would qualify as pulp by your definition?

Then there's the novel "Lovers at the Chameleon Club" based on the real life exploits of race car driver turned Nazi spy, Violet Morris & the infamous "Le Monocle" lesbian bar in the 1920s & 30s. What can be more lurid & sensational than a spy ring targeted at athletes & their admirers?

Like the Indiana Jones films, The Mummy, & the Shadow, these current works also pay homage to the pulp style & Interwar years.

You know a game scenario infiltrating a spy ring througn a lesbian bar might be fun…..

Atomic Floozy

Those are interesting questions. I haven't read any of Ms. Fausts books, so I don't know how graphic they are. Fiction in pulp magazines tended to tease rather than give explicit detail. I looked at her books at Amazon and the few that I saw didn't seem to take place during the Pulp Era.

"Lovers at the Chameleon Club"? Sure. Why not? :-)

I've read this whole thread, and yet, I seems I am walking in on the middle of a discussion that was started somewhere else.

Not sure what any of this matters. Since we can post anything, anywhere, at any time it is all really a moot point.

Whether pulp is defined or not only helps for those that want it to help.

I find it easiest to just read the original post of a topic, if the subject catches my eye, and if not interested stop there. It doesn't take long and doesn't bother me.

I don't think anyone is abusing the Pulp Gaming board by posting Napoleonic or Ancients here.

This topic seems more suited to the Pulp Media section than Pulp Gaming since that seems to be what is being discussed.

The other issue that could be discussed is classifying Pulp Gaming as Science Fiction on TMP. While I don't claim to know everything about pulps it doesn't seem that everything so defined in the original post has science fiction elements in them.

The board is basically adventure gaming because there may not be places for every type of adventure gaming out there. The term Pulp Gaming can encompass a broad range of subjects while the term Pulp Era or Pulp Magazine is more restrictive. If we define it then we need to have Pulp Gaming with science fiction elements. That can be further broken down into at least three boards of futuristic, current to the pulp era, past elements. You could also include a non-science fiction Pulp Gaming board, an alternative history Pulp Gaming board (since things like the Purple Invasion didn't really happen in America), and we should probably find a special place for masked avengers in games, non-masked, etc. it would be a bit ridiculous to do this. Nobody would ever bother to post anything. A good way to kill pulp gaming.

Why worry about it, just enjoy playing games? Read what you want to and don't read what you don't want to.