(Misha Burnett is an author with work available on Amazon. He can be found on Twitter and WordPress. I’ve personally enjoyed what I’ve read of Dark Fantasies, his short story collection)
Do you remember Flash Gordon? The Shadow serials?
These stories fit in the early 20th century category of “Pulp Stories”, also called “Pulp Fiction”. These stories were crime or detective tales, weird tales of horror, sword and sorcery, ray gun sci-fi, war stories, adventure tales, planetary romance, and more.
Yet they have a fan base that stretches across these genres and still consumes them to this day. There’s obviously some reason they’re all held up by modern fans, at least in general.
But with such a wide scope, what, exactly, defines the pulp style of writing?
I came across a blog post from Misha Burnett on the modern fans of pulp stories and how he would explain what composes these stories. Some people even refer to the “pulp age” as the true golden age of science fiction, defined by adventure and romance being pulled into science fiction and fantasy.
Of the modern pulp fans, he described both the “Pulp Revolution” and “Pulp Revival” individuals:
There is some difference in meaning between the terms “Pulp Revolution” and “Pulp Revival”. The Revolution, I feel, is concerned with the publishing and distribution of literary works, ways to enhance discoverability and inform readers of the literary movement. Revival, on the other hand, is more concerned with the aspects of the movement itself. The first term is strategic, the second artistic.
Well, that clears it up on the modern fans. But the reason I’m highlighting this post is because of something Burnett lays out later.
My main concern is how to define a pulp story. Sure, you could argue it’s specifically the works in the early 20th century that crossed genres by pushing adventure, but what about the tales of H. P. Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith? These aren’t particularly adventure stories, yet they are still “pulp” stories.
Misha Burnett defines “five pillars” of this style of writing:
- Action, Impact, Moral Peril, Romance, and Mystery.
Let’s go through these ideas, since I want to parse through them.
Action
For “action” Burnett defines it as:
The focus of the storytelling is on what happens. We know who people are by what they do. This does not mean that every scene has to involve a knife fight on the top of a speeding train.
This is the literary or screenwriter’s term for action. Essentially, something has to happen in the story. Simple actions need to be included, more than just being told what someone thinks or feels.
Why is this different than other genres? Well, it’s not, particularly. It’s simple the fact that a lot of modern writing has played with the form to the point where a story can have no action whatsoever. Pulp stories are not about wallowing in pity with no decisions, no movement. Even Lovecraft’s stories involve people investigating mysteries, trying to find answers.
Because of this, I think “action” is a fine word for it.
Impact
These actions have consequences. While a character’s actions do inform us of that character’s personality, significant actions should never be only character studies. They have lasting real world consequences. You don’t go into a pulp story with an expectation of a happy ending.
I kind of have a bit of an issue with the last note. Burnett is correct to say that consequences play a role. Every action has an opposite reaction, and impact plays a direct role in these stories.
But I’ve read several pulp stories that do end in happy endings. You can generally get the tone early on and know where it’s going.
The gritty western pulp story ends with the hero failing to protect someone because he chose to stop the bad guy instead. The weird horror pulp story has an evil being threatening to hurt the family of another character, which is followed through on.
I would also add that impact necessitates making decisions. A pulp hero doesn’t let things happen, he or she chooses to do something. Choices have consequences.
Moral Peril
Good and evil are common themes in stories like these, but it’s more complicated than that. The modern over-simplification of these stories as “black and white” is wrong. You often see modern takes on pulp stories as a man with a ray gun in a bulb helmet just trying to shoot the bad guy and save the girl.
It’s actually much more complicated than that:
Consequences are more than just material. In Pulp stories there is not simply the risk that that the hero may fail to defeat the villain, there is also the greater risk that the hero may become the villain. A hero should have a code to follow, and lines that he or she is resolved not to cross.
If this sounds like Batman, that’s not a mistake. He started out as a pulp hero, and practically a rip-off of The Shadow. He has a code, and morals he refuses to bend on. This is because it adds an element to the story of tension: will he break his code to save this person?
To digress, moral peril is very real in these stories. Heroes can become villains. Evil is always a threat. In some crime stories the only thing separating the hero from the villain is that the hero doesn’t go as far as the villain does.
I think this pillar is perfect, and fits the genre to a “t”.
Romance
I took exception to this one at first. Once again, hitting on H. P. Lovecraft, how does romance factor in? Well, this is the old school usage of “romance”, like “romance of a trip” or “planetary romance”. Burnett defines it as:
Pulp heroes are motivated by love. Not always romance in the modern sense of a relationship involving physical attraction, but a relationship that obligates the pulp hero to take risks on behalf of another. An old military buddy, a long lost friend, even a client who paid in advance.
The term “romance” is a bit misleading to modern readers. It’s more of a human relationship or captivation. Burnett specifically associates it as a dyad:
“Saving Humanity” is a vague, bumper sticker kind of motivation, saving the fair maiden with the sparkling eyes and plucky wit, or the ragged waif with a mewling kitten is much more satisfying.
For this reason, I would say “relationship” or “captivation” are better words to capture the meaning. Maybe something that captures the individual personal nature of it, the personal nature of it?
Mystery
Mystery is another pillar I feel fits the genre well, but doesn’t perfectly hit the true meaning of what Burnett is trying to get at:
I am using the word here not in the genre sense of a plot concerned with discovering the identity of a criminal, but in the broader sense of the unknown. There are many potential unknowns—the setting, the true identities of other characters, the events that led up to the current crises. Something is going on and neither the protagonists nor the reader should be quite sure what.
The core of many conflicts is a mystery, a “dramatic question” that lurks in the background. Why did he get shot? Who killed him? Even if the characters don’t directly say that question, it’s in the reader’s mind.
Even straightforward heroic fantasy stories have this built into them. Pulp stories use mystery together with romance to make an engaging story. Even the Flash Gordon stories have some aspect of mystery: what is the villain planning? What are they after?
This is another of Misha Burnett’s pillars I think fits pulp stories perfectly. I think in modern parlance, however, that “mystery” is associated with detective stories. Modern readers don’t think of it as an internal mystery to the story, a vague sense of wondering what will happen. Perhaps the term “questions” or something like it would fit better for modern thought?
Regardless, given the subject matter and the audience, I think “mystery” is a fine term for it.
Conclusion
All too often I’ve jumped from a fantasy to sci-fi to crime story under the pulp umbrella and found they have similarities, but I wasn’t sure what. Burnett has given me much to think about here.
Added to this is are the modern fans of pulp fiction. Is it possible to write a modern story using these pillars and create a story like the pulp tales of old? Maybe. I’ve seen some attempts that seem to work, Schuyler Hernstrom among those that seems to make it work.
I know a few guys who are considering reviewing stories using this as a framework to hang their thoughts on. I have no problem with that, and I may do the same coming up. I caution against using it for a quantifiable review system, though, since I don’t believe in reviews that have “stars” or “points” attached.
I hope you, reader, have come to appreciate some aspects of this form of writing. If you’re a more modern reader I’d suggest giving Robert E. Howard or Raymond Chandler a shot and see if you like the style.
If you like my work consider supporting me with a donation! http://www.paypal.me/FrankOrmond
You may like some of my other reviews:
Story Review: Black Amazon of Mars by Leigh Brackett
Story Review: Shambleau by C. L. Moore
Book Review: The Broken Sword by Poul Anderson
Book Review: Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson
You may also like some of my other work:
Frank Ormond 
Pingback: What is Weird Fiction? | Frank Ormond
Pingback: Story Review: The Call of Cthulhu by H. P. Lovecraft | Frank Ormond
Pingback: Book Review: Fiendilkfjeld Castle by Matthew Pungitore | Frank Ormond
Pingback: How to Write a Character’s Value Proposition | Frank Ormond
Pingback: Book Review: Dark Fantasies by Misha Burnett | Frank Ormond