Fantasy or Pulp?

[RexMundi]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

True, but so far, every example you have given, is Pulp. Folks tend to think, that Pulp is chained to the 30's, and Crime Noir, but it's really not. You are talking about a Genre, that included roughly EVERYTHING, ever written, from 1896 to the 1950's. It includes coverage of genre's like fantasy/sword and sorcery, gangster, detective/mystery, science fiction, adventure, westerns (and the prequel Dime Western), war, sports, railroad, romance, horror/occult (including "weird menace"), "spicy/saucy" (soft porn), and Série Noire (French crime mystery).

 

Many classic science fiction and crime novels were originally serialized in pulp magazines such as Weird Tales, Amazing Stories, and Black Mask.

 

You've got an author coverage the likes of nothing ever seen: Poul Anderson (a huge favorite), Isaac Asimov, Robert Leslie Bellem, Alfred Bester (one of my other favorites), Robert Bloch, Leigh Brackett, Ray Bradbury, Max Brand, Fredric Brown, Edgar Rice Burroughs, William S. Burroughs, Ellis Parker Butler, Hugh B. Cave, Paul Chadwick, Raymond Chandler, Arthur C. Clarke, Joseph Conrad, Stephen Crane, Ray Cummings, Jason Dark, Lester Dent (BOOYAH!), August Derleth, Philip K. Dick (Who called himself nothing more then a Pulp Hack), Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock is a pulp defined Character), Lord Dunsany (If you have never read any, you NEED to), C. M. Eddy, Jr., Arthur Guy Empey, C. S. Forester, Arthur O. Friel, Erle Stanley Gardner, Walter B. Gibson, David Goodis, Zane Grey (the IMMORTAL), Edmond Hamilton, Dashiell Hammett, Robert A. Heinlein (To whom many are compared), O. Henry, Frank Herbert, Robert E. Howard (Who practically Defined the Immortality of Pulp), L. Ron Hubbard (Who, besides giving Tom Cruise Scientology, also wrote a fantastic Authors Intro in his Battlefield Earth, Explaining what "TRUE" Sci Fi was), Donald Keyhoe, Rudyard Kipling (yes, HIM), Henry Kuttner, Harold Lamb, Louis L'Amour (I still lean more towards Zane Grey, but they are very comparable), Fritz Leiber, Murray Leinster, Elmore John Leonard, Jack London (I make it a point to read The Sea Wolf at least once a year), H. P. Lovecraft (Without whom, there would be no real knowledge of what not to say in a mirror a few times in the dark), Giles A. Lutz, John D. MacDonald, Elmer Brown Mason, F. Van Wyck Mason, Horace McCoy, Johnston McCulley, John D. McDonald, Merriam Modell, C.L. Moore, Walt Morey, Talbot Mundy, Philip Francis Nowlan, Emil Petaja, E. Hoffmann Price, Seabury Quinn, John H. Reese, Sax Rohmer, Rafael Sabatini, Richard S. Shaver, Robert Silverberg, Upton Sinclair, Clark Ashton Smith (Another Favorite), * E. E. Smith (What can you say about Doc?), Guy N. Smith, Jim Thompson, Thomas Thursday, Mark Twain (One of the originators), Jack Vance (Whom without, DnD wouldn't have a magic system), H. G. Wells (As Pulp as It Gets), Tennessee Williams, Cornell Woolrich, and many many many ,many MORE writers, from nowadays, that are returning to that Style, and that feel of writing, because Pulp, makes you FEEL.

 

You can Feel the adventure. If you were to ask ANY of those authors, if they wrote Pulp, they would say, Yes. When you put down a piece of Pulp Work, you wanted to go PLAY that story out somewhere, somehow. Nowadays, you might get a Trilogy out of a Fantasy Author, a Sci Fi Author (Sometimes more, and then, it's More then you really want), but Pulp? Pulp's often had HUNDREDS of stories written about it's characters. The Wealth and variety within the field, is second to none.

 

The only thing longer then a list of Pulp Authors, would be a list of Pulp Characters. Pulp, simply isn't Chained, to a Time, or a Gimmick, It's the Poetry, of Settings. If it makes you feel the wind in your hair, hear the clash of the sword blades, smell the gunpowder, then it's most likely, written in the Pulp Style. Pulp is The Glue that holds all the other settings together, or the Foundation, upon which they are built. There's been some fantastic books written on the subject of Pulp actually. Not to mention, as far as published folklore goes, it already WAS, and quite easily, fit into the Pulp Machine, and printed out with that fantastic cover art, for folks to buy at the news stand.

 

To chain it simply to the 1930's, zeppelins, and rocket pack cats (which undeniably is very Pulp), is only looking at PULP the genre, through a keyhole. Even if the paint on the house, is done in Noir Black, or Lovecraftian Grey's, or Phillip K. Dick Hallucinogenic Neon's it's Still, Pulp.

 

~Rex

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

True, but so far, every example you have given, is Pulp. Folks tend to think, that Pulp is chained to the 30's, and Crime Noir, but it's really not. You are talking about a Genre, that included roughly EVERYTHING, ever written, from 1896 to the 1950's. It includes coverage of genre's like fantasy/sword and sorcery, gangster, detective/mystery, science fiction, adventure, westerns (and the prequel Dime Western), war, sports, railroad, romance, horror/occult (including "weird menace"), "spicy/saucy" (soft porn), and Série Noire (French crime mystery).

 

Many classic science fiction and crime novels were originally serialized in pulp magazines such as Weird Tales, Amazing Stories, and Black Mask.

 

You've got an author coverage the likes of nothing ever seen: Poul Anderson (a huge favorite), Isaac Asimov, Robert Leslie Bellem, Alfred Bester (one of my other favorites), Robert Bloch, Leigh Brackett, Ray Bradbury, Max Brand, Fredric Brown, Edgar Rice Burroughs, William S. Burroughs, Ellis Parker Butler, Hugh B. Cave, Paul Chadwick, Raymond Chandler, Arthur C. Clarke, Joseph Conrad, Stephen Crane, Ray Cummings, Jason Dark, Lester Dent (BOOYAH!), August Derleth, Philip K. Dick (Who called himself nothing more then a Pulp Hack), Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock is a pulp defined Character), Lord Dunsany (If you have never read any, you NEED to), C. M. Eddy, Jr., Arthur Guy Empey, C. S. Forester, Arthur O. Friel, Erle Stanley Gardner, Walter B. Gibson, David Goodis, Zane Grey (the IMMORTAL), Edmond Hamilton, Dashiell Hammett, Robert A. Heinlein (To whom many are compared), O. Henry, Frank Herbert, Robert E. Howard (Who practically Defined the Immortality of Pulp), L. Ron Hubbard (Who, besides giving Tom Cruise Scientology, also wrote a fantastic Authors Intro in his Battlefield Earth, Explaining what "TRUE" Sci Fi was), Donald Keyhoe, Rudyard Kipling (yes, HIM), Henry Kuttner, Harold Lamb, Louis L'Amour (I still lean more towards Zane Grey, but they are very comparable), Fritz Leiber, Murray Leinster, Elmore John Leonard, Jack London (I make it a point to read The Sea Wolf at least once a year), H. P. Lovecraft (Without whom, there would be no real knowledge of what not to say in a mirror a few times in the dark), Giles A. Lutz, John D. MacDonald, Elmer Brown Mason, F. Van Wyck Mason, Horace McCoy, Johnston McCulley, John D. McDonald, Merriam Modell, C.L. Moore, Walt Morey, Talbot Mundy, Philip Francis Nowlan, Emil Petaja, E. Hoffmann Price, Seabury Quinn, John H. Reese, Sax Rohmer, Rafael Sabatini, Richard S. Shaver, Robert Silverberg, Upton Sinclair, Clark Ashton Smith (Another Favorite), * E. E. Smith (What can you say about Doc?), Guy N. Smith, Jim Thompson, Thomas Thursday, Mark Twain (One of the originators), Jack Vance (Whom without, DnD wouldn't have a magic system), H. G. Wells (As Pulp as It Gets), Tennessee Williams, Cornell Woolrich, and many many many ,many MORE writers, from nowadays, that are returning to that Style, and that feel of writing, because Pulp, makes you FEEL.

 

You can Feel the adventure. If you were to ask ANY of those authors, if they wrote Pulp, they would say, Yes. When you put down a piece of Pulp Work, you wanted to go PLAY that story out somewhere, somehow. Nowadays, you might get a Trilogy out of a Fantasy Author, a Sci Fi Author (Sometimes more, and then, it's More then you really want), but Pulp? Pulp's often had HUNDREDS of stories written about it's characters. The Wealth and variety within the field, is second to none.

 

The only thing longer then a list of Pulp Authors, would be a list of Pulp Characters. Pulp, simply isn't Chained, to a Time, or a Gimmick, It's the Poetry, of Settings. If it makes you feel the wind in your hair, hear the clash of the sword blades, smell the gunpowder, then it's most likely, written in the Pulp Style. Pulp is The Glue that holds all the other settings together, or the Foundation, upon which they are built. There's been some fantastic books written on the subject of Pulp actually. Not to mention, as far as published folklore goes, it already WAS, and quite easily, fit into the Pulp Machine, and printed out with that fantastic cover art, for folks to buy at the news stand.

 

To chain it simply to the 1930's, zeppelins, and rocket pack cats (which undeniably is very Pulp), is only looking at PULP the genre, through a keyhole. Even if the paint on the house, is done in Noir Black, or Lovecraftian Grey's, or Phillip K. Dick Hallucinogenic Neon's it's Still, Pulp.

 

~Rex

 

Maybe. But many of the authors you mention - Vance, Arthur Conan Doyle, Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, etc etc, don't give me the slightest pulp vibe. I guess it's a matter of taste.

 

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

I'm also wondering if it's a traditional Romance. That is, "romance" in the form of a not-too-realistic adventure, with a positive outlook and lots of melodrama and camp. These were popular books before "pulp" (and arguably the pulp were "romance" in this sense), they seem to predate the pulps and inspire them. So the romances share some form with the pulp but have their own set of tropes and cliches.

 

I think your scenario sounds like a "high seas romance" with some ghosts and stuff tossed in.

 

Forgot to add: Some examples of romance books: Captain Blood, and the 1932 novel Mutiny on the Bounty.

 

And The Princess Bride?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Fulp?

 

Seriously, I think it's not a clear-cut line.

 

Indeed. Robert E. Howard was very much in the pulp spirit when he wrote his fantasy, as you can see if you read the original Conan stories (I don't know how many unedited versions exist today). And Lovecraft was very much a fantasy writer, as witness The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, which masterfully combines elements of heroic fantasy with his trademark horrific touches.

 

So don;t worry about genre boundaries unless, and only unless, your players insist on one or the other. Campaigns are collaborative endeavors.

[RexMundi]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Exactly. Oh and good call on The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, that's a GREAT fantasy example from a rather "not often thought of in relation to Fantasy" Author. Kind of like using Pigeons from Hell from Robert E. Howard, as a Horror example. Roots end up in the strangest places.

 

~Rex

[Susano]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Indeed. Robert E. Howard was very much in the pulp spirit when he wrote his fantasy' date=' as you can see if you read the original Conan stories (I don't know how many unedited versions exist today). And Lovecraft was very much a fantasy writer, as witness [i']The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath[/i], which masterfully combines elements of heroic fantasy with his trademark horrific touches.

 

So don;t worry about genre boundaries unless, and only unless, your players insist on one or the other. Campaigns are collaborative endeavors.

 

The current Del Rey REH collections are about unedited as you can get.

[RexMundi]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

True that. Well worth the scratch and they make FINE Christmas presents. All my friends for example, got a Robert E. Howard collected edition (1 got Solomon Kane, the Other Bran Mak Morn etc) this year, so they can actually absorb some cool entertainment, via a way other then an Xbox or a Playstation this year heh....

 

~Rex

[Susano]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

February will see an El Borak collection.

[Vondy]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

True' date=' but so far, every example you have given, is Pulp.[/quote']

 

Personally, its clear to me you've never read an Aubrey-Maturin novel or a fantastique. If you hand you couldn't make this statement. What's more, arguing king arthur or robin hood in their native folklore context are pulp is nonsense. The same goes for folk heroes of the old west and frontier. It would be like arguing the bible is pulp fiction. One would have to be belligerently illiterate to draw such a conclusion. At best, some modern mash ups of them may be pulp. But not the original works.

 

Folks tend to think, that Pulp is chained to the 30's, and Crime Noir, but it's really not. You are talking about a Genre, that included roughly EVERYTHING, ever written, from 1896 to the 1950's. It includes coverage of genre's like fantasy/sword and sorcery, gangster, detective/mystery, science fiction, adventure, westerns (and the prequel Dime Western), war, sports, railroad, romance, horror/occult (including "weird menace"), "spicy/saucy" (soft porn), and Série Noire (French crime mystery).

 

Many classic science fiction and crime novels were originally serialized in pulp magazines such as Weird Tales, Amazing Stories, and Black Mask.

 

You've got an author coverage the likes of nothing ever seen: Poul Anderson (a huge favorite), Isaac Asimov, Robert Leslie Bellem, Alfred Bester (one of my other favorites), Robert Bloch, Leigh Brackett, Ray Bradbury, Max Brand, Fredric Brown, Edgar Rice Burroughs, William S. Burroughs, Ellis Parker Butler, Hugh B. Cave, Paul Chadwick, Raymond Chandler, Arthur C. Clarke, Joseph Conrad, Stephen Crane, Ray Cummings, Jason Dark, Lester Dent (BOOYAH!), August Derleth, Philip K. Dick (Who called himself nothing more then a Pulp Hack), Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock is a pulp defined Character), Lord Dunsany (If you have never read any, you NEED to), C. M. Eddy, Jr., Arthur Guy Empey, C. S. Forester, Arthur O. Friel, Erle Stanley Gardner, Walter B. Gibson, David Goodis, Zane Grey (the IMMORTAL), Edmond Hamilton, Dashiell Hammett, Robert A. Heinlein (To whom many are compared), O. Henry, Frank Herbert, Robert E. Howard (Who practically Defined the Immortality of Pulp), L. Ron Hubbard (Who, besides giving Tom Cruise Scientology, also wrote a fantastic Authors Intro in his Battlefield Earth, Explaining what "TRUE" Sci Fi was), Donald Keyhoe, Rudyard Kipling (yes, HIM), Henry Kuttner, Harold Lamb, Louis L'Amour (I still lean more towards Zane Grey, but they are very comparable), Fritz Leiber, Murray Leinster, Elmore John Leonard, Jack London (I make it a point to read The Sea Wolf at least once a year), H. P. Lovecraft (Without whom, there would be no real knowledge of what not to say in a mirror a few times in the dark), Giles A. Lutz, John D. MacDonald, Elmer Brown Mason, F. Van Wyck Mason, Horace McCoy, Johnston McCulley, John D. McDonald, Merriam Modell, C.L. Moore, Walt Morey, Talbot Mundy, Philip Francis Nowlan, Emil Petaja, E. Hoffmann Price, Seabury Quinn, John H. Reese, Sax Rohmer, Rafael Sabatini, Richard S. Shaver, Robert Silverberg, Upton Sinclair, Clark Ashton Smith (Another Favorite), * E. E. Smith (What can you say about Doc?), Guy N. Smith, Jim Thompson, Thomas Thursday, Mark Twain (One of the originators), Jack Vance (Whom without, DnD wouldn't have a magic system), H. G. Wells (As Pulp as It Gets), Tennessee Williams, Cornell Woolrich, and many many many ,many MORE writers, from nowadays, that are returning to that Style, and that feel of writing, because Pulp, makes you FEEL.

 

You can Feel the adventure. If you were to ask ANY of those authors, if they wrote Pulp, they would say, Yes. When you put down a piece of Pulp Work, you wanted to go PLAY that story out somewhere, somehow. Nowadays, you might get a Trilogy out of a Fantasy Author, a Sci Fi Author (Sometimes more, and then, it's More then you really want), but Pulp? Pulp's often had HUNDREDS of stories written about it's characters. The Wealth and variety within the field, is second to none.Before you were arguing it was an aesthetic rather than a genre - which is it? Further, that it was published in the pulp era, or on cheap pulp paper, does not mean it fits into what has come to be known as the pulp genre.

 

 

The only thing longer then a list of Pulp Authors, would be a list of Pulp Characters. Pulp, simply isn't Chained, to a Time, or a Gimmick, It's the Poetry, of Settings. If it makes you feel the wind in your hair, hear the clash of the sword blades, smell the gunpowder, then it's most likely, written in the Pulp Style. Pulp is The Glue that holds all the other settings together, or the Foundation, upon which they are built. There's been some fantastic books written on the subject of Pulp actually. Not to mention, as far as published folklore goes, it already WAS, and quite easily, fit into the Pulp Machine, and printed out with that fantastic cover art, for folks to buy at the news stand.

 

To chain it simply to the 1930's, zeppelins, and rocket pack cats (which undeniably is very Pulp), is only looking at PULP the genre, through a keyhole. Even if the paint on the house, is done in Noir Black, or Lovecraftian Grey's, or Phillip K. Dick Hallucinogenic Neon's it's Still, Pulp.

 

~Rex

 

It may come as a surprise to you that a great many of us have read almost all - if not all - of the authors on your list and are familiar with the pulp genre, its history, and various facets. Even so, I find your definition of pulp so broad as to be useless. You've also given it repeatedly. Without going into specifics, I see authors on your list I do not regard as pulp - and who don't vibe pulp. That they were published during the "pulp era" and on cheap "pulp paper" does not mean they have what has become known as the pulp vibe. What's more you are vacillating between aesthetic and period. Which is it? Personally, that many genres were written on cheap paper in the first decades of the 20th century doesn't make them instantly pulp in terms of genre. There is a difference between era, medium, and genre. We're talking about genre. You can keep beating the drums. It won't make me come around to your point of view.

[The Suave]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Maybe. But many of the authors you mention - Vance' date=' [b']Arthur Conan Doyle[/b], Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, etc etc, don't give me the slightest pulp vibe. I guess it's a matter of taste.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Not to be argumentative or beat a dead horse, but what about Sherlock Holmes isn't pulpy?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

What about Sherlock Holmes is pulpy? If I think of Doyle when Pulp is mentioned I think of his Professor Challenger stories (The Lost World, The Poison Belt, et cetera).

 

In fairness, it's been several years since I read any Holmes, but my memory is much more Victorian Mystery than Pulp.

 

Either way, the point remains: That was a huge list of authors, (I stopped reading halfway through), not all of which would be considered Pulp except by the loosest standards.

[Susano]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Maybe. But many of the authors you mention - Vance, Arthur Conan Doyle, Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, etc etc, don't give me the slightest pulp vibe. I guess it's a matter of taste.

 

cheers, Mark

 

The closest Heinlein ever got to Pulp (IMO) was Glory Road.

[The Main Man]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Put me in the camp that says that Pulp is not a genre.

 

Now I will grant that back in the days of pulp novels that fantasy, science fiction, and even horror were ill-defined and were lumped together in "weird fiction" but that seems to have less to do with the pulps themselves than it does with the development of speculative fiction, of which the pulp era plays a role.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Not to be argumentative or beat a dead horse' date=' but what about Sherlock Holmes [i']isn't[/i] pulpy?

 

The writing style, the audience it was aimed at, the tone and the characters, principally. People have been tying to make Holmes into a pulp hero for several decades now (witness the recent movie) but Doc Savage, or the spirit, he's not.

 

Arthur Conan Doyle certainly wrote pulp - the Lost World series is definitively pulp, but I've never felt that since an author once wrote pulp, that all they wrote must be classed as pulp.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

The writing style, the audience it was aimed at, the tone and the characters, principally. People have been tying to make Holmes into a pulp hero for several decades now (witness the recent movie) but Doc Savage, or the spirit, he's not.

 

Arthur Conan Doyle certainly wrote pulp - the Lost World series is definitively pulp, but I've never felt that since an author once wrote pulp, that all they wrote must be classed as pulp.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I agree with this. I would even go so far as to say that while the old hard boiled detectives were born in "pulp magazines" they more than less exist in a genre of their own. They may have some stories with more pulp aesthetic than others, but their characters, themes, and tones are often decidedly not pulp. Raymond Chandler's style lends itself more to pulp than, say, Dashielle Hammett. And while John D MacDonald may have included elements common to detective fiction born in the pulps, his characters, themes, and style are clearly detective genre in tone and tenor. Indeed, he's noted for being one of the first post WWII detective authors to engage in serious social criticism in his works, which is not something pulp does at all. In my opinion, pulp is not a genre, era, or medium, but a style with an array of common elements. For a work to be "pulp" it has to evoke that style and make use enough of those elements to cross the line into "pulpyness." A few elements, or an occassional pulpy flourish, doesn't automatically remove something from its native genre and stamp pulp on it.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

I would put forward that a work can be multiple genres. Fantasy/Who-done-it, Pulp/Scifi, Romantic/Adventure.

[Vondy]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

I would put forward that a work can be multiple genres. Fantasy/Who-done-it' date=' Pulp/Scifi, Romantic/Adventure.[/quote']

 

I don't think I disagree with you so much as I feel its a question of overemphasizing lesser elements.

 

I think a work can pull elements from many genres.

 

That it pulls elements from a genre doesn't automatically make it that, though.

 

It needs to reach a certain critical mass/distillation before it can be classified as such.

 

For instance, Raymond Chandler is one of the seminal creators of the hard boiled genre.

 

He may give a pulpy zing now and again, but throwing his works into the pulp cachet isn't useful.

 

Even less so his contemporaries.

[The Suave]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

I suppose my experience with Holmes is rudimentary at best. I guess when I think of mystery I tend to just group it in with pulp. More evidence of the genre being elbow deep in everything (or in nothing, as the discussion goes).

 

I'm gonna go read more Doyle.

[Old Man]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

It seems to me, based on the discussion at hand, that pulp isn't a genre so much as a style. Pulp is to speculative fiction what action movies are to film. It tends to have a single strong character, a relatively simple plot, and in general be a little over the top.

[Vondy]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

It seems to me' date=' based on the discussion at hand, that pulp isn't a genre so much as a style. Pulp is to speculative fiction what action movies are to film. It tends to have a single strong character, a relatively simple plot, and in general be a little over the top.[/quote']

 

Overall, I agree.

 

I would also include being written from a simplistic anglicized moral worldview.

 

If it crosses the line into social commentary, philosophical speculation, or takes too much care to get the details right, its probably not pulp.

 

Excepting, of course, the appearance of its characters, especially women, and going gew-gaw over weaponry minutiae.

 

Use of bold themes, metaphor and allegory, or deep characterization is also outside the normative pulp style.

[casualplayer]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Pulp has a certain earthiness to it, and familiar elements. I know how a punch, sword and pistol works.

 

Fantasy operates under unnatural physics, and if the magic isn't properly described and foreshadowed and constrained it can feel like a cheat.

[Old Man]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Pulp has a certain earthiness to it, and familiar elements. I know how a punch, sword and pistol works.

 

Fantasy operates under unnatural physics, and if the magic isn't properly described and foreshadowed and constrained it can feel like a cheat.

 

Yes, but while fantasy <> pulp, much fantasy is pulp. Conan, obviously. Elric to a lesser extent. Pulp similarly includes space opera (Flash Gordon) and costumed superheroes (Phantom). Its epicenter would be the action hero/adventure genre cf. Lost World, set in the '30s. But it doesn't have to be.

 

Basically, if one is speaking of a pulp genre, then that's the '30s adventure stuff--Rocketeer, Indiana Jones, etc. But I would consider that to be a subset of pulp fiction, which includes sword & sorcery, vigilante heroes, and pulp sf.

[Clonus]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

In general, if something has supernatural elements I start to regard it as fantasy or horror. I'm curious how herodom assembled would define this:

 

A swashbuckling historical game set in the 1700s that contains paranormal elements ala Solomon Kane, Pirates of the Caribbean, and similar adventure pulps. For those familiar with the Aubrey-Maturin series, imagine if POB had turned the books into a "fantastique," a genre which takes the real world and gives it a supernatural (often very subtle) twist.

 

Would you define something like this as Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Fantasy. Although the pulps actually had a lot more genres, in terms of gaming genres the stuff I call "pulp" is adventure, superhero or supernatural stuff set in the 20s and 30s, or science fiction set in a solar system that has native life on all the planets

[drunkonduty]

Re: Fantasy or Pulp?

 

Originally Posted by Old Man

It seems to me, based on the discussion at hand, that pulp isn't a genre so much as a style. Pulp is to speculative fiction what action movies are to film. It tends to have a single strong character, a relatively simple plot, and in general be a little over the top.

 

Written by Vondy:

 

 

 

Overall, I agree.

 

I would also include being written from a simplistic anglicized moral worldview.

 

If it crosses the line into social commentary, philosophical speculation, or takes too much care to get the details right, its probably not pulp.

 

Excepting, of course, the appearance of its characters, especially women, and going gew-gaw over weaponry minutiae.

 

Use of bold themes, metaphor and allegory, or deep characterization is also outside the normative pulp style.

 

I like this. I agree that, when taken at it's broadest, as has been done in this thread, pulp is more a style than a genre. But I think within that an argument can be made that a narrower definition of a Pulp genre can be made: the one with jet packs and zeppelins and fiendish Nazis.

 

Sorry for the wishy washy response but I spent 2 years of my arts degree arguing genre conventions with people and the one solid conclusion I came to was that genre as a concept is utterly subjective. Oh, there are elements that most people agree are typical of a genre, some folks will even say necessary, but there'll be at least one person out there who'll disagree and be able to provide an example to back up their argument. So anyone else's definition of a genre is at best going to be only a rough fit with your own definition of a genre.

 

So at best I think genre is a good short hand to convey a rough idea about a narrative. When using genre in this way I tend to add a lot of generic caveats. For instance, Vondy, I might decide to define your campaign idea as 'historical romance, with pulpy overtones and a touch of otherworldy mystery/horror.' As long as the correct(ish) idea is conveyed all is good. The real definition will come out in play.

 

Cheers.