"What pulp is to you" Topic

Mugwump in a separate thread brings up a great question about Burroughs, and the quation that begs to be asked is what exactly qualifies as pulp?

Sure, pulp is a cultural reference to a specific body of literature as defined by time and history; it is also used to refer to the most popularized period written of in pulp novels (1920s-1950s); and finally it is one of those hard to define writing styles.

It is this last that I think best defines it for me. To me, pulps are somewhat sensationalist stories of mystery and adventure, written to catch the imagination and entertain. Some are well written (Raymond Chandler), some border on drivel, and some are so cliche'd that reading the first sentence gives away the whole story. Pulps seem to be plot based more than anything, and while they may have great themes and characters, it is not necessary.

Thus into this category fall all sorts of stories, and thus all sorts of gaming scenarios. To name a few:

Gangsters and prohibition
Victorian ScifFi (John Carter and Barsoom)
Scifi (Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon)
Spies and detectives (Marlow and Spade)
Superheroes (The Shadow, Superman)
Bold adventurers (Doc Savage and Indianna Jones)
Fantasy (Conan and Tarzan)

Any additions? Any changes?

As for my gaming, I tend to game pre-WWII bold adventure and intrigue, a la Pulp Figures' Doogan's Digest, Indianna Jones.

I love this argument! We just KEEP having it!

I would agree with you here. May I also venture pulp horror, such as Lovecraft, and more particularly the army of authors who copied him?

What it AIN'T as far as I'm concerned is the gamer's definition of "adventuring in the 1920s and 30s".

Don't fence me in, baby!

Pulp is all of those things. The clamour that arose for the Pulp board was to discuss that era between wars. So, not trying to "fence anyone in" when I say that I like pulp set in the 20s and 30s. I love the time and the adventures that came out of it. I love the adventures of Doc Savage, The Shadow, The Spider, Operator 5 and the host of other heroes that came out of that era. I've read the Lovecraft works and enjoy them to and can find lots of gaming ideas within their pages.

I think everyone should define their pulp however they like and enjoy the gaming that comes out of it.

Richard A. Johnson; Rattrap Productions

Couldn't agree more, Polynikes. I myself am using the World Works gothic realms set as a mummy's tomb style adventure. Pulp opens its arms to all sorts of vile villous villainy.

Of course, Operator5 you are probably correct - off hand my guess is that the Pulp board will host mostly threads about 1920s to 50s crooks and adventure.

What I find most interesting is how people inject pulp flavor into their games. At Historicon last year, there was a demo of amazing stories, and no matter what the scenario - wild west, gangster, jungle - it had a very fast and loose feel.

I imagine the same could go for any game played with Rugegd the recent slew of gritty fun pulp rules. I could imagine playing Conan or Aladin style scenarios with a pulp ruleset.

Do you have any examples of how people pulped up their games, regardless of period?

Today's "genre" fiction grew out of the pulps. Romances, adventure stories, westerns, science fiction, horror, "true" confessions, detective stories, soft porn, etc. The paper shortage of WWII shut down most of them. After the war, paperback novels took over. The genre magazines that continued the pulp tradition flourished some in the 50's. Almost all genre magazines had died by the early sixties. The only genre left today publishing fiction are the porn magazines.

I'm not sure that just saying that it covers wargaming the period between the world wars is adequate to describe "pulp" fiction. There has to be an element of the "fantastic" added to truly qualify as "pulp".

"Mugwump in a separate thread brings up a great question about Burroughs, and the quation that begs to be asked is what exactly qualifies as pulp?"

Fiction which was printed on Pulpwood.

"and finally it is one of those hard to define writing styles."

"Pulp" isn't a writing style, more people need to realise this. I suppose you could say there was a style of art during the so-called "pulp era". But that "pulp" is a style is a misconception.

You can argue the proper definition, but the general use one, by definition, is correct. Pulp means, in gamer usage, '20s-50s over-the-top fiction and science fiction typical of that period. Language changes, and old definitions no longer work. This message is dedicated to Polynikes. ;-)

Ahh, but Patules, there is so much that gets left out of that definition. It's like saying that Film Noir means films that were made in black and white even though color film was available.

I guess for me Pulp Fiction is a cultural term that carries more with it than the strict definition implies. It's Pulp Essence that gets me wargame inspired.

"'Pulp' isn't a writing style, more people need to realise this. I suppose you could say there was a style of art during the so-called "pulp era". But that "pulp" is a style is a misconception."

If there was a style of art why can't it be called Pulp writing? And why do writers continue to refer to pulp-style writing? Pulp writing got its name from the pulpwood used, we all agree on that. But there is a definte style that emerged during that time period when pulp magazines were being done and it has taken on the label "Pulp".

Rich

Pulp's one of those things that is easier to recognize than define. Conan is pulp, Tolkien isn't: anyone disagree? Not just because Robert Howard published in cheap magazine sthat cost a quarter apiece, and the good professor didn't, but because Howard inserted ingredient X, the pulp gene, which meant that he could carry us through constant cheesiness with a straight face. Sometimes a ridiculously straight face. And it's great, in its way.

I think Paris Hilton might be pulp.

I went over to ThePulp.Net just to poke and prod, and one of the things that caught my eye was this passage:

... Street and Smith Publications offered readers a completely new type of pulp called the “character magazine.”

This is what I think of when I think of pulp - episodic offerings, aimed at a mass market, centered around a single character. Hence, The Shadow, Conan, Buck Rodgers, and Cthulu are pulp, but one-shot stories tend not to be - even if they were part of the period. Not surprisingly, I don't think of Sam Spade as pulp - he's only got one (really good) story, after all - but the unnamed Continental Op *is* pulp.

I think, because there were so many character stories written, we expect bad ones. When they happen, we laugh at them, rather than critique them. I think that's one of the primarily qualities of pulp.

MJS writ: "Tolkien isn't: anyone disagree?"

Just for the sake of argument...

I just finished reading "Conan the Conqueror". Again. A few comparisons:

Whenever Conan gets into a jam, a scantily clad noblewoman, harem girl, Stygian vampiress, etc., gets the hots for him, and rescues him from the damp dungeon, like a true deus ex machina. Tolkien uses Eagles.

Howard prattles on endlessly with penny a word adjectives, adverbs, gerunds, ablative absolutes, split infinitives, etc. Tolkien throws in elvish poetry.

Now, this is not a hill I am willing to die on, as Dr. Laura would say. It is just that the difference is not cut and dried.

Is Paris Hilton a cheap trollop? Definitely not. She's an expensive triollop, but then, we are just quibbling over price.

As Justice Stewart said, I may not be able to define pulp, but I know it when I see it.

"Language changes, and old definitions no longer work. This message is dedicated to Polynikes. ;-)"

Your definition would often lead to - Mmm... Pulp wargaming, why is it called that? Oh, maybe because it's violent and they beat each other to a bloody pulp? Oh, who cares the name sounds cool! - I can hardly see a definition changing when there are various opinions on just what the new definition should be.

"Ahh, but Patules, there is so much that gets left out of that definition. It's like saying that Film Noir means films that were made in black and white even though color film was available."

Would you rather the dictionary say something like "ridiculously cheesy writing, example: Paris Hilton." ? I can't see a definition changing

"If there was a style of art why can't it be called Pulp writing? And why do writers continue to refer to pulp-style writing? Pulp writing got its name from the pulpwood used, we all agree on that. But there is a definte style that emerged during that time period when pulp magazines were being done and it has taken on the label "Pulp"."

Because that would ignore the fact that there was more than one style of prose, published. Pulp fiction was renowned for being full of pace, or so I have often heard remarked, perhaps that is what you mean when you say there was a definite style? Also it is of import to note there were, just like there are today, many hacks. And those modern writers probably are substituting an author's name and style for "pulp-style writing". example: "his writing is old school, pulp-styled swords and sorcery." Or they are of those who follow the misconceived term.

How about this: If you have to go and look up words, but do not feel you are being educated, you are probably reading pulp. Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.

"I just finished reading "Conan the Conqueror"."

Do bear in mind, this was edited by L. Sprague de Camp, if it's the Ace or Lancer edition.

Hey John the OFM, you tell us -

"Whenever Conan gets into a jam, a scantily clad noblewoman, harem girl, Stygian vampiress, etc., gets the hots for him, and rescues him from the damp dungeon, like a true deus ex machina. Tolkien uses Eagles."

Eagles sound pretty damn lame when you put it like that.

Who's for a revival of trashy pulp fantasy? When we deliberately seek out overmuscled barbarians with giant swords and pneumatic babes in brass bikinis - you know, the things we usually feel embarrassed about.

That's a whole new topic, I think -

Taken from the review of the Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers:

Server (Over My Dead Body), who writes about pop culture and literary history and is a stone-cold expert on pulps, offers encyclopedia-style biographical entries on legendary writers in all of the mass market categories: westerns, horror, science fiction, detective stories and romances. Entries include the usual suspects, such as H.P. Lovecraft, Louis L'Amour, Ian Fleming, Mario Puzo and Jacqueline Susann, as well as more unlikely names: Baroness Emmuska Orczy (the Hungarian refugee who wrote The Adventures of the Scarlet Pimpernel), John Faulkner (the less successful sibling of you-know-who, whose 1951 Cabin Road is about the ribald shenanigans of Mississippi hicks), Achmed Abdullah (the Russian-born, Afghanistan-raised, Oxford-educated author of spy thrillers and gritty New York Chinatown noirs-The Honorable Gentleman and Other Stories, etc.-in the 1920s and 1930s). The biographies themselves make for engrossing reading, as Server describes how Bruno Fisher came to write his "weird menace" supernatural pulps while working as the editor of the Socialist Call, or why Chester Himes turned from social novels to detective fiction (he was broke). A bibliography follows each entry, and Server includes an introduction that describes the rise of cheaply bound sensational fiction in the 19th century.

So, there are Pulp Fiction Writers, so there must be "pulp fiction."

Rich

"Who's for a revival of trashy pulp fantasy? When we deliberately seek out overmuscled barbarians with giant swords and pneumatic babes in brass bikinis - you know, the things we usually feel embarrassed about.

That's a whole new topic, I think -"

'So, there are Pulp Fiction Writers, so there must be "pulp fiction."'

I never said "Pulp fiction" didn't exist, the fiction (of all those you list) published in Pulpwood magazines, was called "Pulp fiction". And yet you insist on calling "cheaply bound sensational fiction" a style. You are insisting "pulp" is a style of writing based on one descriptive word, 'sensational'. Now isn't that quite an ambiguous description?

No, that was me that brought up sensational. Also, just to be clear, this is the definition I use for sensational:

2 : arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction

I got all confused when 'Mugwump' and 'Burroughs' where mentioned in one line.

I thought someone suggested Naked Lunch was Pulp.

Now some things of W.S. Burroughs writings may be of use, like giant centipedes, lemures and simopaths, I think most of it is just too gross...
(I use them in my near-future background)

;-)

Mat hat is officially off (revealing too many gray hairs)to Mexican Jack and John.

A) Paris Hilton is somehow, in a very post-modern sense, pulp, and straight-face-through-the-cheesiness is somehow exactly how I think of pulps.

B) Bikini-barians vs. eagles; grunts versus elvish poetry. I believe your comparison identifies the very essence of what makes pulp pulp.

That was "My hat is officially off..."

Mat's hat has nothing to do with this.

I hope that both Mat and your own hats are snapbrim fedoras, battered or otherwise. Mine is, although right now a less than pulpy woolly hat is getting more daily wear. It's cold mushing the sled dogs to catch villainous trappers with suspect French accents across the frozen wastes of, uh, downtown Toronto.

To me the "Pulp" is pretty much any fiction (Sci-fi, hero, etc) from between WW1 and WW2. Including the madness in the Northwest Frontier and Central/East Africa. We like to do this in 15mm with the old Dream Pod 9 figures.

I also include a lot of 'Victorian Sci-Fi' in the mix with my games. Mostly because we play Colonials 1850-1911 with the Great Powers at 'Skirmish'. Often we will 'roll foward' history a bit and have the Russian Revolution a couple of decade's earlier along with early flyers and armored cars.

I find that the figures in many cases are interchangeable as the rifles on a 28mm figure is the main differance we cannot get change. The uniform colors changed of course, but most people are willing to overlook that for an afternoon of fun.

And yeah... Paris Hilton is very 'Pulp' if you can get past the grating annoyance on first glance. Not to mention Gwen Stephanie!

Can an antihero be pulp? For example, is Flashman? Is a Flashman pastiche, such as S.M. Stirling's "The Peshawar Lancers" (even though it's not episodic)?

I would argue that Gwen Stefani is not pulp, as she is too originally creative; her '40s appearance in a couple of videos is purely image. But pre-"Kabbalah" Madonna: pulp.

Allen

Allen, Flashman is too well researched to be pulp. If he was pulp, he'd have been involved in acts of desperately inaccurate history, and there might have been animated skeletons or green gripping hands at many plot points.

You are right about Madonna. She's a thirties starlet in the worst sense of the term.

For me a pulp wargame is a wargame where

1) the action is focussed on 1 or more "hero" character

2) it is a skirmish game

3) it involves some kind of irony

4) mixes element of history with fantasy or sci-fi

5) the game has a "movie" approach, an adventure movie of course

6) it works better if it is borderline with role playing with a master able to make a lot of "quoting", fuelling the game taking a lot from common imaginary

In light of the latest debate over limiting the definition of pulp, I went back to some of the earliest posts in this folder, from 10 years ago. As I suspected, nothing much has changed.
I was delighted however, to discover Mexican Jack Squint's sage observation:
"I think Paris Hilton might be pulp."

The problem with using the term "pulp" all by itself is that in some minds it's very limiting, as in fiction from pulp magazines and fiction that is similar to that, and to others it's very loose, as in "anything I want it to be baby". I use the term "pulp era gaming" because it covers *all* of the fiction in *all* of the media produced from 1910 to the mid 1950's. That includes the best and the worst of the era as long as there is an adventure (including detective adventure) theme that isn't already a well known gaming genre, like pirates, western, WW II, etc.

back to OP topic – what is "pulp to me?" fun, adventure, little bit of sarcastic wit; mostly just a "feels like" than anything else regardless of era, writing, style, tropes.

and how come nobody mentions Leslie Charteris 'the saint' series (val kilmer terrible movie not withstanding)?

>>how come nobody mentions Leslie Charteris 'the saint' series<<

"The Saint In New York", starring Louis Hayward, is one of my favorite "B" movies.

"Is Paris Hilton a cheap trollop? Definitely not. She's an expensive trollop, but then, we are just quibbling over price."

Cheap? Hey, I'd pay a quarter for…nah, never mind.

And Servo: the how-and-why of a Thread-cromancy (warning, warning--new word alert!) of a discussion nearly 10 years old would qualify as an "Astounding Tale" (broad wink at MJS)

I do wonder at the drive to pigeon-hole 'periods' and genres of what is, at root, fantasy. Does it make people feel safer? Does it give people ammunition to lecture others on what is or is not proper? We'd all do well to remember that Pulp is fantasy. Not Middle Earth or Glorantha for sure but it is invented, made up, created from imaginations.

This means to me that, in my Pulp universe, anything goes really. It also means that your version of Pulp is fine too. And yours. And yours.

>>This means to me that, in my Pulp universe, anything goes really.<<

And as it turns out, after doing a little searching about how the board was created, you are absolutely correct. "Pulp gaming" has no definition.