"Should Pulp Board Be Limited to the Pulp Era?" Topic

to the recognized Pulp era (including 1920s and 1930s)

And there's a problem – there is no "recognised pulp era".

The 30's through the 40's and into the early 50's probably best defines the golden age for the number of magazines.

But This is a pulp magazine (note the date) :

(great Freas cover!)

And of course – this is a pulp magazine too :

As is this

I think what we, as gamers, really mean is the era of Weird Tales and hardboiled detectives like Marlowe.

>>Just because someone does not know the meaning of a word within one context, that does not invalidate the meaning of the word as it is used in communication by others.<<

On the pulp gaming board the term "pulp" is not being used in communication with others. Since nobody knows what it means, and again, you might *think that everyone is on the same page, but I promise you that they are not, it is being used to *mis*communicate with others.

>>Under that distinction, Indiana Jones would be excluded from the board.<<

I didn't mention Indy *this* time, but I have many other times in the past. Those films, and many others, represent the period, so why *wouldn't* we use them for scenarios. Lucas said that "Raiders" is an homage to the serial chapter plays of the 30's and 40's.

In any case, If I answer every challenge with a complete manifesto every single time, it's going to get really tedious, really fast. Especially for *me*.

>>You have a lot of unstated assumptions in your definition of "Pulp" that contain interesting contradictions.<<

See above.

>>And I see little benefit from mentioning Sherlock Holmes in one instance when I would be excluded from mentioning him in other contexts simply because of when the story was published or set. Under those distinctions<<

You think that I'm being more rigid than I actually am. I'm always open to ideas and opinions. I certainly have been wrong about many things in life, and I correct my opinions whenever I can. After all, who wants to sound like a dope? But here and now we are discussing what has already been settled. The people who frequent this group don't want any limits or parameters to what they post and discuss. OK. I'm fine with that. I don't understand why we're still talking about it.

>>But This is a pulp magazine (note the date)<<

It was not a pulp magazine in 1974. At the start of 1942 Analog switched from a pulp magazine to a larger bedsheet format, but this did not last. Astounding returned to pulp-size in mid-1943 for six issues, and then became the first science fiction magazine to switch to digest size in November 1943. After that it was considered a digest sized "slick".

Mr. Malchow please note that this is what I mean about miscommunication, or misinformation if you like, when definitions are not clear, and everyone is *not* on the same page.

Thank you 20thMaine for helping to illustrate the flaw of thinking that everyone knows what "pulp" is.

The Shadow said:
"On the pulp gaming board the term 'pulp' is not being used in communication with others. Since nobody knows what it means, and again, you might *think that everyone is on the same page, but I promise you that they are not, it is being used to *mis*communicate with others."

I've already addressed this issue in another thread, but to sum up, if people really did not have a shared meaning of "Pulp" then its appearance in a sentence would lead to cognitive dissonance, such if I wrote "There was the dord as it would always be." When someone reads the sentence, dord means nothing to them, robbing the sentence of any semantic meaning, although technically speaking, "dord" is a word that has appeared in dictionaries before. Dord is a word that appeared in some 1930s dictionaries, but was never used in communication, as it was a typo of a specialized abbreviation.

You keep suggesting that it is semantic ambiguity, but no misuse of polysemy nor homonymy is occurring in this thread. (The references to pulp from orange juice are not misuses, but those references would also be unclear if there was ambiguity as to how the word "pulp" was used in other posts.) So if you really want to convince me that you are correct, you have to overturn 60 years of linguistic research.

The Shadow wrote:
"I didn't mention Indy *this* time, but I have many other times in the past."

And you can do that, but not without violating the clarification about what you meant regarding "pulp era" in the post I quoted and responded to. Changing your meaning does create semantic ambiguity, which is the very concern you are arguing against.

The Shadow added:
"In any case, If I answer every challenge with a complete manifesto every single time, it's going to get really tedious, really fast."

I'm not asking for a manifesto, just consistency in a position. that is not unreasonable to do.

The Shadow said:
"But here and now we are discussing what has already been settled. The people who frequent this group don't want any limits or parameters to what they post and discuss. OK. I'm fine with that. I don't understand why we're still talking about it."

I think that is a sentiment that some others have had in the past when their posts have been highjacked for debates on what is and is not pulp. And in that case, I am not sure why you felt the need to respond to my initial post then. Since that post, I have only been responding to comments you have directed to me.

And despite your claim of being fine with other people wanting no limits, you still felt a need to comment on 20thmaine's post, and how it typifies the very problem of doing so, as far as you are concerned. I am not saying you cannot comment, just that it is nice to have consistency in a position, as I mentioned before.

Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow

The Shadow wrote:
"Astounding returned to pulp-size in mid-1943 for six issues, and then became the first science fiction magazine to switch to digest size in November 1943. After that it was considered a digest sized 'slick'."

While I understand what you mean here, some people make a very clear distinction between "digest" magazines and "slick" magazines. In essence, you are doing exactly what you accuse 20thmarine of doing with the term "pulp", not using terms precisely as others would use them, yet there is no miscommunication or misinformation going on in either case, because of the connotation of what is being stated.

In literary theory, there are debates about when Modernism started and ended, and what can be included in the Modernism canon. Such distinctions are "won" based upon common usage over time, and with new information and insight about the period. I think "Pulp" will be defined along the same lines, as is the case with all words used in any language. Future definitions might not be to your or my liking (as I would be frightened at a world where "The Banana Splits" would be considered pulp, but intrigued in one where "Danger Island" might somehow fall under that category).

I think your expertise regarding pulps is really useful, and it can be informative and helpful to gamers on this board, but I think endless concerns about how different people view pulp differently (despite sharing common understanding or schema for pulps) is not constructive, for all the reasons I have stated before.

Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow

>>I'm not asking for a manifesto, just consistency in a position. that is not unreasonable to do.<<

It's unreasonable when I'm replying to your comments about specific issues without going into a very long winded discussion about my general position. For instance re: my comment "In short, what I said was that 'any' fiction published in 'any' media during the pulp era should be fair game to discuss, provided that it doesn't duplicate discussions in other forums" is only *one* of the parameters that I have suggested in the past. You used *one* of my comments and suggested that it is my *entire* opinion in order to make it seem that my opinions are contradictory because I didn't include "Indiana Jones" in that statement.

>>And despite your claim of being fine with other people wanting no limits, you still felt a need to comment on 20thmaine's post, and how it typifies the very problem of doing so, as far as you are concerned<<

Two different issues. It is a problem. I'm not fine with the problem. I *am* fine with group's decision. I have to be. It's either that or pointlessly argue about that decision, and I'm not going to waste any more time discussing it.

>>I think your expertise regarding pulps is really useful, and it can be informative and helpful to gamers on this board, but I think endless concerns about how different people view pulp differently (despite sharing common understanding or schema for pulps) is not constructive, for all the reasons I have stated before.<<

OK. Bye.

Well, I'm glad THAT'S settled!