Friday, February 3, 2017

Cirsova Defines Pulp Revolution

In response to a dismissal by another magazine editor, Cirsova lays out what Pulp Revolution is:
We are not using the pulps to recapture kitsch; we are not using the pulps as a trope-mine. What we are doing is going back to some of the exemplary authors from that period and using them as a starting point. Not to ape them, but because we love them – we love the stories they told, the characters they brought to life, and the vivid colors in which they painted the exciting futures and worlds of the unknown. 
We are not hell bent on re-inhabiting the past; we are using it as a launching point to go off in new directions. We do not ignore nor do we deny the influence of writers who are not from the pulp eras. 
The Pulp Revolution today has only a tenuous link to the ‘pulp revolution’ of the 70s. That pulp revolution was part of the climate that inspired things like D&D by bringing a bunch of pulp writers who had fallen into semi-obscurity back into the forefront via paperback reprints, pastiches and homages. But that was 40 years ago. That was a generation ago. Many of us were not even alive in 70s, much less old enough to been a part of that resurgent wave of fiction. Do not assume that because people got interested in the pulps 40 years ago that everything is all good and people don’t need to get interested in the pulps again. There was not an unbroken cultural continuity that kept those works and authors in the public conscious. Do not assume that we are only talking about Burroughs, Howard or Lovecraft. Do not assume that because you have old works sitting on your shelf that people today know about them or worse that new people do not need to be told about them or should not be excited about them.
Read the read here.


UPDATE: And Jesse Lucas adds his own spin at his blog.

1. Pulp Revolution is not New PulpThey're doing their own thing. That's fine. We're not trying to claim their authors, style, or successes. At a basic level, New Pulp focuses primarily on the aesthetics of early 20th-century pulp magazines, while Pulp Revolution seeks to imitate the themes. I won't say more about New Pulp because I'm not trying to define them. I just want it clear that we're separate movements with separate goals and very little member overlap. 
2. Pulp Revolution is not a Puppy movementWe are not Sad or Rabid Puppies. We're the people that saw what they were doing, and said, "less activism, more content." I don't care about awards, Hugo or Dragon, and while some authors/bloggers involved with PulpRev have had past connections with Puppies, we're all pretty tired of that now. 
2a. Castalia House Blog is not Vox Day.The bigggest PulpRev hub at the moment is at Castalia House Blog. While this may seem to contradict point 2 above, CHB is very much Jeffro's creature ever since the Appendix N series. Note the recent spate of articles critical of Campbellian SF, with a Submissions page on the same site that calls for a return of Campbellian SF.
Regarding 2a., as one of those heavily critical of Campbell, I must echo Jeffro here: "Oops."

No comments:

Post a Comment