I should be writing a book review, but
some heated discussions in the Pulp Revolution Twitter crowd over the
last 24 hours or so have me wanting to put some random thoughts down.
These aren't in any particular order or organization.
The topic of discussion is tone and how
Pulp Revolutionaries are presenting themselves. There are some Pulp
supporters who don't think its necessary to tear down non-Pulp
establishment authors like Asimov in order to build up the Pulps. I'm
mostly on this side because I think the quality of the Pulps is
obvious when people are exposed to them and I think readers are smart
enough to decide for themselves. Right now I'm reading The Horror
Stories of Robert E. Howard
anthology and its phenomenal stuff. Seriously, go read it.
The
other side is crashing the gates of establishment Fantasy/Sci-Fi
screaming for vengeance after seventy-odd years of very serious
Literary people shitting on the Pulps with lies and scrubbing all of
the fun out of speculative fiction. Jeffro Johnson, arguably the
torchbearer of the Pulp Revolution, is strongly in this camp, and
makes a number of good points at the Castalia House blog about allthis.
Now
the random points:
1: The
fact that people are civilly disagreeing in public discussions about
the nascent Pulp Revolution is good. Healthy, even, since it shows
there's a lot of passion going around, and passion is what drives
TWO-FISTED TALES OF ADVENTURE!
2:
Emphasis on public discourse, insofar as that's possible, considering
Twitter and G+ and other outlets increasingly tightening the screws
on Wrongthinkers. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a secret cabal of
Pulpists conspiring to behead those who insult the name of Burroughs.
If there is, I haven't been invited to it.
3:
After the conversation last night, Cirsova Magazine's editor put up a
post about how he got called a misogynist fascist for daring to go to
another forum and offer to talk about the kind of stories he prints.
He reached out an olive branch and was called a fascist.
That's bullshit, and that behavior isn't even uncommon among Establishment/Pink/Post-Campbellian Sci-Fi fans. Just look at how Jon Del Arroz was treated by his local scene. Hell, look at what happened to the Sad Puppies campaigns every single
year of their existence. At least the Pulp side of the fence enjoys
the concept of being an ideological fistfight instead of chanting
something like “Pulp Will Not Divide Us” during the next Hugo
Awards to a half-empty auditorium. (Calling it now.)
4: It
is impossible to coexist with something that wants you driven out
from its presence or converted to its narrow worldview. Which is what
Establishment Sci-Fi is nakedly trying to do to Pulp. We have
evidence. See the above point. Pulp and the Superversives are a very
real threat to the ivory tower of modern Science Fiction &
Fantasy. They have the enthusiasm, very soon they're going to have
the writers (and a lot of young, up and coming writers at that, with
long careers ahead of them), and then they'll have the audience.
5: Off topic, but I've noticed a very
large number of Catholics in the Pulp and Superversive movements.
Makes sense, since the Subversive movement has little for them/us to
care about.
6: Twitter is garbage for nuanced
discussion. Its a weird kind of arguing but agreeing at the same
time. The “Barnstormers” aren't saying all post-Pulp Golden Age
stories are worthless and the “Diplomats” aren't saying that the
Barnstormers shouldn't be criticizing the sacred cows of
Establishment sci-fi when justified. At least I hope not.
7: If you catch me tone policing, tell
me to dial it back.
8: That was a joke.
9: And yes, I'm starting to change my stance from Diplomat to Barnstormer.
10: And N
2 comments:
I'm in the same page. I like a lot of post pulp stuff, I like a lot of new stuff. But I don't think being nice to those people is worth it. I also love that Howard collection.
Is that Horror Stories of REH the Del Ray book? or something newer?
Post a Comment