I have to admit I’ve been slow to add links to “new pulp” sites at ThePulp.Net.
I can’t say that I’ve read many new pulp stories. It’s not because I dislike them. Rather, in my limited time for reading, I’d rather be reading stories from the actual pulps that I haven’t read before. (And clearly, after a 50-years-plus publishing period, there are plenty of pulp stories that I haven’t read.)
I’ve also been torn about broadening the focus of ThePulp.Net, which I’ve tried to limit to the pulp magazines and material about the pulps.
But an article by David Walker about new pulp in this summer’s issue of The Pulpster — the zine published yearly for PulpFest — got me thinking about better coverage of the topic at ThePulp.Net.
In particular, it was an editor’s note that accompanied the story that really struck me.
I thought Tony Davis, editor of The Pulpster, summed up “new pulp” quite well:
The “new pulp fiction” has been active in recent years, and more and more self-published novels and collections appear on PulpFest dealer tables and mail-order lists.
This used to be known as “fan fiction,” and science-fiction fans have been producing such material since organized fandom reared its head in the 1930s and ’40s. Today’s publications are more professional looking than those produced on old mimeograph machines or with carbon copies on a Smith Corona manual typewriter.
There’s both good and bad with the new pulp fiction. On the “good” side, pulp fans are encouraged to express their love of the pulps and pulp heroes by creating new tales. And as the years go by and we get further and further removed from the pulp era, it’s nice to know that the pulps are living on in one form or another. Publishers of the new pulp fiction also take out advertising space in pulp fanzines — that can only be “good” for business.
On the “bad” side, one could question the quality of some of these modern attempts at writing pulp fiction by non-professional scribes. Sure, you could argue, there were badly written stories during the heyday of the pulps. However, the pulp publishers had editors and other staff who read submissions and ensured that they at least met the standards of the pulp magazine (even for a Spicy title). Some stories were returned to aspiring authors for a rewrite, sometimes including critical suggestions for improvement. Other stories ended up on slush piles as fillers. But at least they were subject to review.
Another concern is that newcomers to the pulps might mistakenly think the glossy trade paperback they are looking at was originally written in 1933, not 2011. Newcomers should remember that “new pulp” is reflective of fan fiction today and not the pulp era of the late 1890s through the early 1950s.
Tony ends with: “There is a place for the new fan fiction…”
So, to echo Tony, there’s a place for new pulp or fan fiction — or whatever you’d like to call it — at ThePulp.Net. We’ve added a new page to the “pulp hunt” section linking you to publishers and other sources for new pulp.
As always, if you know of any links we should add, please let us know.
I don’t like the implication that New Pulp authors are nothing more than “fanfic” writers of dubious quality. Ron Fortier, Mike Bullock and myself are just a few authors who have written in other fields besides New Pulp. I don’t see anything wrong with fanfiction per se, but I feel that essay by Tony is a rather subtle dig at New Pulp authors as a whole.
Once again the prejudice against new pulp fiction rears its head by an uninformed source. I cannot speak for all the publishers of new pulp fiction, though I do believe I speak for the majority of the quality companies like Wild Cat Books, Pro Se Productions, Black Coat etc. Many of the 30s pulps were horribly written, enough to make any English teacher today cringe and reach for her red marker. But Tony assures us each and ever one was edited, reviewed and even rejected, whereas he claims that is not the case with today’s pulp fiction. Did I miss something here? Is he saying no one is editing Clive Cussler, Stephen King, Lee Child, all writers of new pulp fiction. The problem with Tony, and others is tunnel vision. They would love to label all new pulp fiction as “fan fiction” and thereby not have to deal with it. The truth is the majority of new pulp fiction, including everything published by the companies I mentioned earlier is all created by professional writers, it is reviewed, edited even better than most of the stories of the 30s. In fact the writing is easily better than what was produced in the 30s and 40s. Which is what I think bothers the purist who fail to recognize, even though he claims to, the true lackluster writing of much of the old stuff. New pulp fiction is NOT fan fiction, its too bad he can’t tell the difference.
I’ve read “New Pulp” written by Ron Fortier, Will Murray, Isabel Allende, Justin Gray, Max Allan Collins, Martin Powell, Alan Dean Foster, Tom DeFalco, Ron Goulart, Chuck Dixon, Trina Robbins, Harlan Ellison and many others who make a living as authors. All of it was edited.
I’ve edited “New Pulp” works by Joe Gentile, Tom Defalco, Win Scott Eckert, C.J. Henderson, Mike Baron, Ben Raab, Will Murray, Martin Gately, Danny Fingeroth, Paul Kupperberg, Tony Bedard, Robert Weinberg, Justin Grey and many more professional authors as well.
In my humble opinion, if you read that list and define the collective efforts of those among it as “fan fiction” I’d suggest it might be time to invest in a dictionary.
for a reaction from The New Pulp Movement, yes there is such a group and yes, it includes a variety of writers, publishers, and artists… go to http://www.newpulpfiction.com.
I don’t see “fan fiction” as a put-down. It just means it’s not a product of mass-media businesses that want to make money, but rather fiction produced by fans for the love of the art.
Fan fiction does have a mixed history. It ranges from poorly written to classic fiction. 1940s fan groups, such as the Futurians (which included Frederik Pohl, James Blish, Damon Knight and Isaac Asimov), proved to be the future of science fiction. They produced mimeographed zines, short-story collections and novels.
It was known as fan fiction and it was on mimeographs (and later photocopiers) because they didn’t have the technology that is available today where books can be printed on demand.
I see “fan fiction” as small publishers who can survive on limited sales because they do it for a love of the material and not for bestsellers and big-money contracts (though, I’m sure that would be welcome).
I might add, that the original pulpsters, for the most part, were in it as a business. It was a job.
WRONG!
NEW PULP IS CANON. I can’t state it any simpler than that. By this definition, the Tinsley Shadow’s were fanfiction as were the ghosted Docs.
Fanfiction, to me, consists of writing stories featuring characters one can not write about legally. For example, everyone wants to do a Doc Savage story but he’s copyrighted so good luck getting it printed. Will Murray excepted of course. So you write your Doc tale and email it to your friends. Nothing wrong with that, but that is, to me, fanfiction.
Taking public domain characters and writing new adventures with them is, again this is my opinion, no different than being one of a stable of authors who ghosted Shadows, Docs, Spiders, Secret Agent X’s back in the 1930s. Let me repeat that, NO DIFFERENT.
As has been stated above, the publishers producing New Pulp run their operations like the magazines of the 30s, taking advantage of all the technological advances of today. Stories are “ghosted”, edited, illustrated and published for general consumption. Aside from upfront payments (which were small in the 1930s let’s remember), the operations are run identically. Thus New Pulp is published to sell, not to hand out for free and not tossed out there in the hopes of selling a few copies before lawyers descend with cease and desist letters.
New Pulp counts, folks. It is canon. New Pulp authors are taking public domain and copyrighted characters and writing new stories with them. Take whatever number of tales written about a particular character back in the 30s and 40s and add the ones being done today because their histories are being added to in the same way the ghost writers of the past did. They count!
Frankly, pulp fiction is dead without New Pulp. Clear enough? The magazines get mustier, they crumble into dust. The old fans age and die out. Thinking the great pulp of the past will simply find an audience on its own is a dream doomed to failure. It is only by adding to the great work of the past with new stories featuring the classic characters as well as creating new characters today that the art form will continue into the future.
Get on board or be left in the dust of crumbling magazines. To me, old pulp and new pulp go hand in hand. I love ’em both and support them both. I’m happy and honored to have a chance to write these great characters and welcome the challenge of creating new ones.
Pulp fiction has been dead for over 50 years, since the press was stopped for last pulp magazine. It died when there were no more pulp magazines — with or without “new pulp.”
Theodore Tinsley’s Shadow stories were published in the pulp magazine. You must mean Dennis Lynds’ paperbacks for Belmont. I certainly don’t consider paperbacks as pulps. Belmont’s was an attempt to revive the pulp character for the paperback generation, much as “new pulp” authors, publishers, etc. are doing now.
Whether or not new pulp stories are “canon” is for the reader or fan to decide. Are L. Sprague de Camp’s Conan stories canon?
I will point at your comment about fan fiction being “writing stories featuring characters one can not write about legally.” Gnome Press, which is considered a fan publisher, published the first collection of Asimov’s Robot stories — legitimately. Their collection was later published by Doubleday, a mass-media publisher.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with “new pulp” fiction. Heck, back in the ’70s, friends and I used to talk about writing new Shadow stories (which certainly would have been “fan fiction” and “new pulp”). It’s great to see all of the new reprints and “new pulp” books out there.
Responding directly to the allegations in Mr. Davis’ quote above:
1. I am not “self-published.” I am a professional writer who submits stories to reputable publishers, and pitches projects and novels–just like any other pro.
2. All my books and stories have undergone repeated rounds of professional copyediting.
3. On the books I edit, I provide several rounds of editorial feedback and correction, and copyediting. I have, no doubt about it, rejected stories due to lack of quality.
The generalization and assumptions by Mr. Davis to the contrary invalidate his conclusions.
Thank you,
-Win Scott Eckert
I do wish to apologize for any insult caused by using the phrase “fan fiction.” It wasn’t intended to be demeaning anyone or their work. I intended it solely to mean fiction produced by fans.
Regarding editing, here’s another take on it from Kevin Burton Smith over at the Thrilling Detective Blog.
The relatively small “Pulp Community” should be behind anything that can renew or expand interest in the Pulps. The “New Pulp” writers are taking their love of those old Pulps and expressing it in new ways. This is an effort that should be supported. And I think it is for the most part. I have sampled the new takes on classic characters, and don’t enjoy them so much. But I find the new characters written in the old pulp style great fun to read.
At Age of Aces, we express our love of the Pulps in a different way. We are taking the original stuff and packaging it in new ways. Anyone who has picked up a copy of “The Spider VS. the Empire State” might agree that it is a very fresh take on The Spider, even though it re-prints the original stories. And while we have had hits and misses along the way, we still love doing it and will continue on. I hope the “New Pulp” writers will continue on also.
The divide between new pulp/old pulp doesn’t exist for me. It is all just PULP.
Bill Mann
“Regarding editing, here’s another take on it from Kevin Burton Smith over at the Thrilling Detective Blog.”
I generally agree with some of the sentiments, if not the snark with with they were expressed. And I follow them in my craft.
1. Editing and criticism matter. This means real criticism of the writing itself.
2. Mere correction of misspellings and other proofreading corrections that amount to typos, does not constitute editorial criticism.
3. No one “deserves” to be published, just because new and emergent technology enables it.
4. Standards of writing matter to me, and should matter to everyone participating in New Pulp.
Nonetheless, I object to New Pulp writers and publishers being painted with a broad brush.
1. Not everyone in the New Pulp movement self-publishes, and even among those that do, there are certainly gems to be found.
2. There are writers, editors, and publishers in the New Pulp movement who care about honing their craft, seek out and incorporate real criticism (my beta readers are folks with M.A.s in writing fiction, journalists, and so on–not “dubious beta readers and enablers”), and work hard to raise the writing bar with each new story.
On a related note, William, I appreciate your note of apology and accept it. My intent posting here is to continue to dispel some basic assumptions which are being made in Mr. Davis’ piece and now in the Kevin Burton Smith blog to which you linked. Do they have some valid points to be made? Certainly, particularly the KBS blog post. However, any of the valid points Mr. Smith makes are diluted by the snark, and the erroneous generalization that writers in the New Pulp movement do not rely on skilled editors. Some do, and some do not, as with any endeavor.
Sincerely,
-Win Scott Eckert
“There is one thing that can keep a man in internal ignorance, contempt prior to investigation.” –Edmund Spenser (Paraphrased)
So my own character is fan fiction? Doesn’t quite seem to fit the definition.
I have to agree with the many people put off by the statements of Tony Davis.
Its clear to me his calling “New Pulp” “fan fiction” IS meant as a putdown and insult. There is nothing wrong with fan fiction, but most New Pulp is NOT fan fiction. Small press =/= fan fiction! especially in this day of POD and the like. Several of the current published of New Fiction (like Moonstone) are very much legit publishers. They may not be in at the level of Bantam, Del Rey, Random House, et al, but they are legit.
So are the new Shadow novels by Gibson published by Belmont or the new Doc Savage novels by Will Murray published by Bantam “fan fiction”???
Also “Another concern is that newcomers to the pulps might mistakenly think the glossy trade paperback they are looking at was originally written in 1933, not 2011.” Really??? Is this a legit concern?? I call bullshit on that one.
(by the author of the original alt.pulp FAQs)
William, your definition of fan fiction is extremely broad and it can apply to any number of forms of art. The definition of fan fiction is not a hard one to grasp — unlicensed, fan-produced works of copyrighted characters without any sort of profit. Expanding the definition of fan fiction to include small publishers? That’s extremely disingenuous. The two New Pulp novels I’ve written used only characters I myself created. In no possible way could you claim my original work is fan fiction.
Defining fan fiction simply as “fiction produced by fans” means that pretty much all fiction is fan fiction, because most fiction is produced by people who are themselves fans of whatever genre they’re writing in.
There’s also another thread I see running through this discussion and Tony Davis’ original statement which is completely wrong — and it’s the idea that POD is the equivalent to throwing something up on a webpage.
POD is a tool — nothing more, nothing less. To say that POD makes someone more of an amateur than someone who uses offset printing is like saying someone who uses a computer to write is more of an amateur than someone who uses a typewriter.
I imagine Tony Davis and many other naysayers who make this POD = amateur hour claim would feel differently. If the New Pulp publishers put out our material via offset printing as opposed to POD, the naysayers wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss us.
And I’ll wager that these naysayers have never actually used POD in their lives. I know this because they think it’s as easy as pressing a button. It’s not. If anything, POD requires more work on the part of the author than going through a traditional publisher.
I pose a challenge to everyone who thinks like this — take a manuscript. Now, format it for publication through InDesign. Then, design a cover for it. Put the whole package together and submit it to a POD company. After you’re done with that, take that original manuscript and completely reformat it again, this time for e-publishing.
Do all that. Then come back here and tell me it’s as simple as pressing a button. Tell me where I can find this magic button that will instantly put my books into print, because as of now, the entire process of putting together a book while working a full-time job can take me a few months, and I wouldn’t mind having that time free to do something else.
And this idea that POD = no editors? I find that EXTREMELY interesting. I’m going to e-mail the people at Pulpwork Press, Airship 27 and Pro Se Productions right now and ask them just what they’ve been doing with my writing after I send it to them. I’ll ask what these strange little comments and these mysterious e-mails I receive from them after I’ve sent my manuscript are all about. Because according to Tony Davis, New Pulp doesn’t involve editors. So surely this isn’t the result of an editing process. And next time any of these “not editors” tells me that I need to make changes to my manuscript before it can be published under their banner, I’ll ask them where they get the nerve! After all, they’re not editors, right? There is no editing process in New Pulp, right?
The next time you choose to casually dismiss everyone in a certain segment, it’s best to do your research first.
This topic has really hit a nerve in the “new pulp” community.
Take it as a challenge. Demonstrate to the doubters of and those unfamiliar with “new pulp” that it is more than “fan fiction.”
Extend the high quality and editorial criticism that everyone has argued is there in the “new pulp” writing. Spread it throughout the whole package: artwork, covers, design, production and promotion. So when someone sees a “new pulp” book for sale online or on a dealer’s table, there won’t be any doubt that it isn’t just “fan fiction.”
You can write blog entries and post comments all day, but when it comes down to it, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Kick it up a notch or two. Show the pulp community that there is quality in “new pulp.” Then there won’t be any doubt.
If you’ve actually read much current New Pulp and you still have doubts, I’m not sure anything anybody does would make you wake up.
That’s sort of the point I’m making. For folks who haven’t read it, you can make a difference.
For those who have, as you say, “actually read much current New Pulp and … still have doubts,” there’s not much more you can do. You’ve already turned them off.
“Extend the high quality and editorial criticism that everyone has argued is there in the “new pulp” writing. Spread it throughout the whole package: artwork, covers, design, production and promotion. So when someone sees a “new pulp” book for sale online or on a dealer’s table, there won’t be any doubt that it isn’t just “fan fiction.””
That’s what we’ve been doing. By your own admission, you haven’t even read much New Pulp, so how can you claim that we haven’t been doing this when you have no experience with it yourself?
All I’m saying is that if someone has been critical of the job I’ve been doing, it makes me want to worker harder to prove them wrong.
Clearly this all has hit a raw nerve. That wasn’t my intent. All I ask is that you go back and read my post and comments. The only part that might be taken as criticism was my statement that said Davis’ note summed up new pulp “quite well.” But, clearly, I was mistaken.
As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with new pulp. I won’t judge its quality or professionalism because I haven’t read anything I would consider “new pulp.” I have not read “The Desert Demons” (or any of Murray’s other or Farmer’s Doc Savage books, for that matter) or anything from other new pulp publishers. I have read Ron Fortier’s rewrite of the Captain Hazzard pulp story — as well as the original. (I was curious to see whether he could fix such a badly done story, and he did an excellent job.)
There are so many actual pulps (and pulpster biographies and pulp references) that I haven’t read, that I’d prefer to spend my limited “pulp” time reading those.
That said, I’ve exhausted all I have to say on this matter.