"What is Pulp Sci-Fi?" Topic

"It's why we like what we like. It's why we like the music we do, and whether (Heaven forbid) we like that painting that matches the upholstery. Even your favorite ice cream is a type of aesthetic that is appealing to your own tastes. This article is an attempt to delineate what I like to call "pulp sci-fi", a heading that encompasses the sub-genres of space opera, retrofuturism and dieselpunk.

Although the term "pulp" refers to the cheap paper on which many early fiction tales were printed, it is much, much more than that. These tales, while reviled by their contemporary literary critics, provided a foundation, toolbox, and set of tropes that all modern pop-culture science fiction must pay homage. It is so significant, in fact, there is a movement to preserve the heritage of these stories at sites like The Pulp Magazines Project…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

So the Foundation books are critical to pulp SF, but Doc Smith's Lensman series is not worth mentioning? You could fill volumes with what this person doesn't know which is critical to what she wants to discuss.

to paraphrase a certain cartoon sailor

I likes what I likes

Funny, I would have said that the Foundation novels aren't Pulp (far too solidly grounded), but the Lensman series is four-square in that target (biff! Bash!).

With you John. OK, probably not as far as "solidly grounded" but I agree that the Foundation novels are a long way from pulp--and a VERY long way from space opera. That would involve, like, individual people. And I think people as individuals bored Asimov silly.

Leigh Brackett wrote an essay once that about once a decade people proclaimed space opera dead, to be replaced with something serious and respectable. But some years later, the hot new "this time the professors will assign us" thing was dead--anyone remember New Wave?--but space opera was still there "plying its dark trade in heroes."

Liking is a matter of taste. This is a serious confusion of type. You can like chocolate or not, but when you insist it's caramel, you're wrong.

Pulp SF uses the vocabulary of SF without actually using the science.

Pulp fiction in general rarely even taps the brakes when it comes to pacing.

A very interesting and well thought out article. The author points out that there are good reasons to categorize. It was never difficult for me to understand what "pulp" actually is, but others will argue that it's whatever that you want it to be. Those people, usually, wouldn't know a pulp magazine if it fell on their heads.

Pulp SF? Sometimes I feel like I don't know anymore these days.

But here's a little of what I DO know:

A) It's more about action drama and bang. It's about fun with creatures, exotic lands/worlds, outer space and/or the future (that's the SF part of it). And it's more about good guys vs bad guys, and less about the latest science, politics or sensibilities behind it all, or about some fixed time period or place*.

B) And if we read too much into something, and lose all the fun out of it, it probably isn't Pulp any longer. You've sucked all the good Pulp right out of it, and I wouldn't want you sitting next to me when I watch any of my favorite Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits episodes.

Is that about right? :)

Dan
* Unlike "Victorian SF", I think Pulp SF transcends all calendar and locale limitations.

Glad you like it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I can't describe it but I know it when I see it.