|
|
Editorial
November 25, 2003
|
|
Do Pulp Stories Have to be Set in the Past?
Here's an interesting question. To be considered as "Pulp",
does a
story have to be set in the "Pulp era"? That is, does the time
period in which the story occurs have to be set around the 30s and 40s?
I received a recent email from a reader who, having read my
editorial criticizing McSweeney's
Mammoth Treasury of Thrilling Tales, suggested I try instead
the Mammoth Book of Pulp Fiction
edited
by Maxim Jakubowski. So, I surfed over to Amazon.ca to check out
the reviews posted by average readers. One of those reviews felt
Jakubowski's anthology was overall pretty strong, but that the stories
from the 70s and
80s weren't as good as the "real" pulp stories found in the same
anthology from the "real" pulp
era. That review started me thinking about the aforementioned
question.
Now, first off, let me say I have a slight pet peeve with including
stories from
outside the pulp era in a book which specifically calls itself a "Book
of Pulp Fiction". Jakubowski must surely know that readers who
pick up such a book are looking for vintage
stories from the Pulp era,
not stories "in the style" or "in the spirit" of the Pulps. Like
it or not, "pulp fiction" has a definition, and refers specifically to
stories printed in pulp magazines from the 1920s to the early 1950s --
and
even that is stretching things a bit. I've seen all sorts of
authors labelled as pulp writers, simply because they wrote a long time
ago and specialized in genre fiction -- Jules
Verne and H.G. Wells, to name a couple -- but they were not.
Just the same, I will concede that I am being unnecessarily
nit-picky in insisting on such a strict definition and I will concede
that the editor of the Mammoth Book
of Pulp Fiction simply wanted to compile a collection of stories
in the spirit of the Pulps,
modern stories included, and I should stop griping and be thankful for
that --
after all, isn't that what we are trying to
do here at the Mighty PDF? You can bet I'm still going to ask
for the Mammoth Book of Pulp Fiction
for
Christmas!
So, the question then turns to the
quality of modern "pulp" stories.
That Amazon.ca-reader's reaction was perfectly in keeping with my
own
reaction virtually whenever I have encountered supposedly modern
examples of "pulp fiction". It is rare for a modern writer to
recapture the special something that made the vintage pulp stories
work. Why is that?
One possible answer is that the examples of vintage pulp stories
which have come down to us out of the distant past were preserved and
endlessly anthologized precisely because they were the very best the
Pulp era had to offer. In other words, comparing modern pulp
stories to vintage Pulp era stories is a false comparison because we
are comparing the average
modern story with the exceptional
pulp. Of course, modern stories can't compete under those
circumstances.
And yet, I'm not sure that entirely explains the weakness in
modern stories. I often find, when reading modern "pulp", that
the authors' hearts just don't seem to be in
the exercise. Often there is a sense that the authors consider
themselves better than their material, or at least better than the
material which they are imitating, dooming the effort from the
get-go.
And yet, just the same, I have read modern authors whose hearts
clearly were
in the project, who had dedicated their lives to worshipping at the
Pulp altar, but whose own examples of the species still fell far
short of the mark. Often in those cases, on a technical,
nuts-and-bolts level, the author may seem to have done everything
right
-- and yet, still, somehow the story didn't work. It wasn't
"pulp".
Oftentimes, those modern pulp stories are set in modern times and,
because the author otherwise seems to have done everything right, I
find myself asking the question with which I began this
editorial. Is the problem simply that a "pulp" story needs to be
set in the past to meet my approval?
Certainly, a pulp story -- whether written today or seventy years ago
-- does have certain appealing aspects when set in the Pulp era,
aspects which it would not have had were it set in modern times.
All pulp stories are, basically, fantasies -- they deal with fantastic
events and fantastic characters (or at least characters capable of
fantastic feats). The women are impossibly beautiful, the men
impossibly manly and the villains impossibly vile. To the
modern reader, a story set in the 30s benefits from a milieu which is
essentially just as fantastic because it is alien to our present
experience. The differences between society back then and society
now aren't huge, but they are just enough to help us to distance
ourselves and so suspend disbelief in the fantastic events which are
made to take place in that environment.
But this distancing has another, perhaps more important benefit.
Because the story concerns events set in the distant past, those events
don't carry the same emotional and political baggage which modern
events would carry. Thus the reader is able to sit back and enjoy
the ride, without worrying about real life concerns, which, after all,
is why pulp stories are referred to as "escapist literature" -- the
reader is able to escape from
present day concerns. For example, we can watch a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark, concerning
Nazis just before the Second World War, and enjoy the thrill-ride in a
way we could not enjoy the same adventures were they set in the far
more recent, more politically charged framework of the Iraq War.
A third advantage to setting pulp stories in the long ago is
that the author can tap into an already existing body of symbols which
the reader will instantly recognize -- recognize because of the many
vintage pulp stories which
have gone before and used the same symbols. For example, when the
author
describes a character dressed in jodhpurs and a pith helmet, the reader
immediately understands that that character is headed for adventure in
some isolated wilderness far from civilization. The character is
also probably a fairly rugged, manly individual, most likely the hero
of the piece. That is what the jodhpurs and pith helmet "say" to
the reader. Of course, through exposition the author could have
told us all this, but through such symbols
he/she was able to convey all that far more subtly.
But perhaps there is a fourth and even more important advantage to
setting
stories in the past. By using symbols that are specific to the
Pulp era, the author can also tap into the reader's expectations of
excitement and adventure which are associated with vintage pulp
stories. For example, to use the Raiders of the Lost Ark again --
that movie was set in
the 1930s precisely so that audiences would recognize its kinship to
the real pulp
stories which it was imitating, and thus would be primed to react in
the same way -- without the cynicism which they might have shown to a
similar story set in modern times.
So far I have listed four advantages to setting a pulp story in the
Pulp era. What is interesting about the first two of these -- to
suspend disbelief by setting the story in a "fantastic" environment and
to allow the reader to escape from more recent real-life events --
is that they only apply to modern
readers. After all, to readers
who lived in the Pulp era, the 1930s weren't the far distant past, but
the world they experienced every day. They had only to open the
newspaper to find real-life explorers decked out in jodhpurs and pith
helmet. No doubt there was still an element of "exoticness" to a
man in a pith helmet, but it was not nearly so alien to their
experience as it is to the modern reader. And events such as the
Second World War were as recent and politically charged as the Iraq War
is to the modern reader.
But what about the question of symbols? In that case, I suspect
Pulp era-readers probably took the same meaning from those Pulp era
symbols as we do today -- at least once the Pulp era got well and truly
rolling, say by the 1930s. By then, a hero in jodhpurs and pith
helmet probably "meant" the same thing to them as it does to the modern
reader -- manly adventure in the farflung wilderness! The same
can probably be said for the use of such symbols to provoke certain
expectations and emotional reactions in the reader. Whether then
or now, readers probably saw
a story about a hero decked out in jodhpurs and pith helmet and
thought, "Hot dog! This is going to be an exciting story!" -- a
result of having previously read countless
pulp stories which had already delivered on that promise.
So, what is my conclusion? Does a pulp story have to be set in
the Pulp era for me to enjoy it?
In spite of my griping, I have occasionally run across
modern writers who set their stories in modern times and whose stories
still thrilled me and met my definition of "pulp". One example is
James Rollins, author of Excavation,
Deep Fathom, Subterranean, Amazonia and Ice Hunt. I would also say
Clive Cussler, doomed forever to be known as the author of Raise the
Titanic!, fits the bill (he even included an exclamation point
in his title -- you can't get more pulpy than that!). Although I
have problems with Mr. Cussler's politics, I certainly think he carries
the modern pulp banner with gusto. To this list I would add
Douglas J. Preston and Lincoln Child, the dynamic duo behind Relic, one of my all time
favourite novels which I have read more times than any other
book. And, while I'm at it, I would toss in the English
author
Wilbur Smith. His novels often are set in the past, but even when
firmly rooted in the present they still read like old fashion
pulpy adventures. But, of all these, James Rollins most closely
meets my idea of "pulp", with wildly imaginative thrill-rides
that have the research and plausibility of a modern "technothriller"
married with the two-fisted, non-stop action and far-out science
fiction speculation of a vintage pulp -- in which literally anything
can happen, from time travel to amphibious piranhas.
Of course, here at the Mighty PDF, while the lion's share of
serials are set in the past -- usually the Pulp era -- we have
occasionally published serials set in modern times. Both "Goblin's Gold" by D.W. Owens and David
Reeder's H.P. Lovecraft homage, "Beneath
the Glacier", are modern yarns and I hope you will agree they do
not suffer for the fact. Indeed, much of the appeal of "Beneath
the Glacier" lies in its use of modern high tech weaponry (and military
grunt jargon) to create an air of plausibility in an otherwise
fantastic horror story.
In the end, in answering my question, I can only say I think there are
certainly advantages to a pulp story
being set in the Pulp era, but I don't think it is absolutely
necessary. It all depends on what effect the author is going
for. Whether set in the past or set in the present, the important
thing is to tell a fast paced, rousing yarn.
Next week..."How to Write a 2000 Word
Editorial and Still Not Answer the Question"...
Jeffrey Blair Latta,
co-editor
and Supreme Plasmate
Got a response? Email
us
at lattabros@yahoo.com
Pulp
and
Dagger Fiction Webzine
