Defending the Pulps. At least some of them...

My chosen topic: Pulp Fiction. I don't mean the "Bring Out the Gimp/ Royale with Cheese" Tarantino film of the same name, but rather the stories that fall under the category title. I tend to read an awful lot, and lately more than ever I've been on a big short story kick. Many of the anthologies I read feature stories originally printed in pulp magazines. The Pulps, for those who don't know, flourished in the early part of last century, with their heyday in the 30's. They were the forerunners of comic books and featured primarily adventure stories and detective fiction, although horror and science fiction pulp magazines were among the most popular as well. The literati of the time regarded pulp magazines with the same level of contempt that I regard the entire Romance genre and the writings of Anne Rice; that is, to say, a high level (I'd rather rub shit in my hair than read either of these things). Being seen reading a pulp magazine back then was kinda like being caught with an issue of Juggs (fine publication though it may be), and generally pulps suffered from the stereotype of really bad writing pandering to the lowest of the literate unwashed.

While it's true that the pulps did showcase some of the worst hacks imaginable and offer some of the crappiest writing ever read, this stereotype is, like most stereotypes, relatively undeserved. Some terrific stories, characters, and writers came from the pulp genre and their influence endures. And it's not like bad writing died with the pulps; one need look no further than the Harlequin romance shelves or the aforementioned Anne Rice to see that not only does bad writing persist, it's lucrative.

Critics of the pulp stories tend to point to the fact that in many cases character development is nonexistent, plots are cliched, and dialogue is stilted at best, completely ridiculous at worst. They also point to the blatant racism that permeates the genre. There is some truth in all of these assertions, but in order to be a critic one must put things in perspective, which I shall now do for y'all.

Character development IS nonexistent in many pulp stories, and the reason why is simple: it doesn't really matter. Pulp stories are fairly straightforward and rarely are they of any significant length that would require the reader to have any more information about characters than the author presents. The exception to this generality are serialized stories and stories with returning characters, and even then, character development beyond the superficial is rare. What motivates Conan the Barbarian? Pretty much nothing more than gold and plump wenches (same here). Who really gives a crap what motivates Doc Savage? Usually it's no more than saving the girl and beating the bad guy. The reader just wants to be thrilled by his latest adventures. Neither one of these characters is as complex as Hamlet or Raskolnikov; we don't need to identify with them-in fact, you really can't! That's the POINT. If realism was the story's goal, it wouldn't have been in the pulps in the first place.

Pulp stories in many cases ARE cliched. Then again, so are many stories and movies nowadays. How many horror movies have you seen where the camera lingers close-up on a character from the front view, then the character turns around and AAAAA!!!! There's the bad guy....right behind them all along! You couldn't see him because of the extreme close up....but we're supposed to be terrified like we haven't seen this device 800 times and didn't know it was coming. Or the beginning of every action movie where we meet the brother/buddy/girlfriend of the cop/soldier/ex-con-trying-to-go-straight and we KNOW that by no later than 20 minutes into the movie, that person is gonna be dead, killed by the bad guy, and the hero must get revenge, and...awww, you know the rest.

One of the things I noticed when reading Raymond Chandler years ago was that the dialogue was Oh-so cliche....it was like every lame private eye character I'd ever seen in movies, tv, and comics. Until I realized that Chandler wasn't cliche, he practically INVENTED the whole private eye genre. Everything that came after him was the cliche! Anyone who has ever read Mickey Spillane knows that dialogue in pulps can be pretty ridiculous; his character Mike Hammer talks like I did in high school-there's no one in the world tougher than Mike Hammer, and he'll tell you that himself every chance he gets. (Spillane even spoofed his own character in Lite Beer commercials years back). Other characters really force you to suspend your disbelief while they wax philosphical. Then again, try reading any of James Fenimore Cooper's crap and tell me you believe his characters would talk as they're written.

As far as the racism goes, it's there in buckets. Sax Rohmer wrote book after book about Dr. Fu Manchu and the "Yellow Peril"; the only thing that stood in the way of the East taking over the world were two stalwart (and very white) Englishmen. Rohmer alternately praised and denigrated the Chinese in his books; Fu Manchu was brilliant, refined and cultured, but ultimately evil, and in control of a vast army of "sub-races"(in other words, non-white). I recently read Robert E. Howard's tales of Solomon Kane and lost count of the amount of times I read the phrase "black savages". H.P. Lovecraft named a protagonist's black cat "Nigger-Man". Even the Tarzan tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs make Tarzan, a guy raised by APES fer Chrissakes, more "civilized" than the native Africans he hangs with. To these criticisms I can only say it was a much less enlightened time...these stories were written decades before the Civil Rights movement. One must read them for what they are-entertaining and in some cases well-written, but certainly not politically correct-which is probably why Rohmer's work is out of print in the US(but easily enough found in used bookstores).

What's really exceptional about the pulps, however, are the writers themselves. Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan, inspired a whole genre known as sword and sorcery. Robert Howard was the most prolific, and some say the greatest, pulp writer ever. Howard published assloads of stories in his short career until he blew his own brains out at age 30. Not all were winners, to be sure, but to say he had an influence on fantasy literature is a vast understatement.-kinda like saying Shakespeare wrote some decent plays. Same thing with H.P. Lovecraft...his stuff went largely ignored for decades after the death of the pulps but is now more popular than it's ever been, especially around these parts, as Lovecraft was from Providence.

What blows my mind about these guys is the sheer drive they possessed. Both of them were self-educated in a time where there was no easy access to information. There was no Internet, and even the libraries weren't as well stocked as they are these days. Robert Howard lived in rural Texas, and yet was more informed about ancient history than most college professors. He created an entire age of civilization as a backdrop for his tales. In order to get his education, he had to request books from libraries all over the place. He wrote tons of letters (many to Lovecraft) in addition to his stories. Lovecraft created an entire Mythos, and also was a prolific letter-writer, and read more than a few books himself-check out his essay Supernatural Horror in Literature if you want a GREAT resource for some good horror reading. Most importantly, they loved to write. Financial motivation for these guys was at best secondary; they contributed to the pulps regularly at a time when they were paying half a cent a word. Not even Howard, by far the most prolific of the pulp writers, was a wealthy man, and most couldn't even make a living with what they wrote for the pulps. I admire them for the fact that they had more motivation than I ever had-they wrote stories instead of just talking about it like I do while sitting on my ever-widening ass.

I recently saw two films about these two authors, which is why I guess I'm focusing on them above all others. One was a documentary about Lovecraft called The Eldritch Influence, which features interviews with contemprary writers like Neil Gaiman, Ramsey Campbell and Brian Lumley-who, in my humble opinion, is a pompous ass (a term my friend AnnMarie has used to describe yours truly on more than one occasion). Interesting and at times very campy (like the interview with the professor from Lovecraft's fictional Miskatonic University) it's worth seeing if you're one of the people reading this (if you're still reading this) who is into Lovecraft, but isn't likely to be readily available outside of a specialty shop (like the comic shop I patronize-The Annex, in Newport, R.I. Tell Wayne I said howdy.).

The other movie is more mainstream (which means you could probably find it if you looked)...it's called The Whole Wide World, and it's a film all about Robert E. Howard and what a complex guy he was. It features Vincent D'Onofrio as Howard, and Renee Zellweger as his girlfriend Novalynne Price, who later wrote memoirs about Howard and his life. I wasn't expecting much, but it surprised me. Mostly I was surprised anyone would make a movie about Robert E. Howard, but it's actually a pretty good flick.

Anyway, that's my sermon. I'm sure I'll have more to say about writing in general and pulps in particular-if you have any comments sound off. I'm off to read some more.

Gaming Geekdom

Since I would welcome comments (from those who feel like it) to some of my recent long-winded emails I've decided to post them here, edited for content just a smidge to keep it on-topic. First up, my post about gaming. My thoughts on pulp fiction to follow if I can find them.

I watched an interesting movie last night. So interesting, in fact, I have to comment on it, as it has direct relation to me and to about half the people who will get this email. It is called Uber-Goober (supply your own umlaut, please) and it is a documentary all about roleplaying gamers-you know, guys like me who played Dungeons and Dragons. I rented it expecting it to be funny and it was, mainly for all the reasons you would think (see below), but it was also a pretty candid look at a very misunderstood hobby in its myriad forms. You can find info on it at www.ubergoobermovie.com, if you're so inclined.

So, to begin, those of you who know me from a social setting other than gaming may not know that I am, in fact, a gamer...although not much of one anymore because all my gaming buddies are scattered to the Four Winds, and trying to get anyone together long enough to get a game going is difficult at best. People I used to game with regularly have other responsibilities like kids and wives now. In fact,out of the dozen or so people I used to play with, I'm one of 3 guys who are still single/childless/ not living with a significant other. We grew up, and real life got in the way of the game. It happens.

Which brings me to the point (or one of several I'll make. Read on if interested). The movie deals with standard misconceptions about roleplaying games and gamers in general-all of which will be every familiar to all the gamers on my email list. One of these is that we all can't handle real life and therefore retreat to a fantasy world where we don't have to worry about things like rent and personal hygiene. Another is that we're all a bunch of losers who can't get a date. Still yet another is that we're a bunch of Satan-worshippers who bring guns to school and torture cats on Halloween. Hey- if Geraldo Rivera says it, it must be true.

One of the gamers in the film said it perfectly. He said that when he tells people he is a gamer, the reactions he gets vary from suspicion to outright hostility. He was one of several gamers who opted to have their faces blurred or appeared in silhouette. At first, I thought this was a joke. Turns out it wasn't-people are really reluctant to be identified as gamers because they feel there will be social consequences. One guy is a cop and is worried that if it becomes known he is a gamer it will affect him in the workplace. Why is this?
Well, let's take a look at the stereotypical "gamer". All of you, whether you're gamers yourselves or not, know who I mean: Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons comes to mind. The average gamer is usually 50 lbs. overweight and has few to no social skills. He smells like old socks or unwashed ass. He wears chainmail (or an elven cloak-depending on the gender of the gamer),to the mall. Perhaps he wears fake vampire teeth and sunglasses indoors. He thinks this makes him cool.

What it does is make him look like an asshole. Unfortunately, these are the people that non-gamers (NG's) think make up the gaming community. And while it is true many gamers have no fashion sense (myself included-I wear jeans and sweatshirts almost every day I'm not at work), most of us don't wear armor to the grocery store or a Starfleet uniform to jury duty. That's just silly.

As I said earlier, a common gamer stereotype that NGs hold is that most gamers become too wrapped up in the game and it becomes their life. Despite what Geraldo will tell you, this almost never, if ever, happens. Gaming is, by nature, a social event (also stated in the film). You can't game by yourself (if you do, please seek help). Everyone I gamed with can all differentiate reality from fantasy very well. Most of them are extremely intelligent people who are well-informed on a wide variety of subjects.

Those who knew me in high school, when I gamed most, know that I was a moody individual prone to exaggeration, but hardly a Satan-worshipping murderous psycho. Say what you want about how I turned out (I'm sure you all have your own theories)...all joking aside, however, I think I turned out ok, and so did my gamer friends.

I truly believe gaming has had a hugely positive impact on my life. First of all, it was and is enormously fun. But it also made me think. It encouraged creativity, imagination and problem-solving. It increased my vocabulary and gave me a love of reading (I would venture to say I read more than any 3 of my friends combined...that's not love-that's bordering on a disorder). It helped enormously with my education.

Some of the current professions of people I have gamed with in my life: lawyer, teachers (2), social workers (3-myself included), scientist, and computer support technician. Of these, 3 own their own homes and 2 are in the process of getting one. We're all of us doing ok. Others I have lost track of over the years, but were doing well when last I spoke to them. None of us killed anyone, went insane, became drug addicts, joined a cult, or dropped out of school. None of us were alcoholics by age 20 (that would take me until age 30...just kidding. Kinda.) None of us lives in our parents' basement, and all of us shower regularly.

We all have varied interests. I often joke that if I were to lay all my interests out, most people wouldn't believe they were from the same person. For shits and grins: let's do that. I like: Reading; Writing; Bagpiping and Celtic music; Aikido and other martial arts, including Capoeira; Comic Books; Roleplaying; Big, Voluptuous Women; Guinness; Video Games; Cooking, and Learning. Now, you all know me to some extent, some better than others, and so this may not seem all that difficult to believe after all...but my point is I don't think I live in Middle Earth, and my name ain't Frodo.

The second big stereotype is that we're all losers who can't get a date. Now, while I know plenty of gamers who are losers, but none are my friends, so we don't all fall into that category. As far as getting dates go, I never had a problem with that despite my dorky hobby (or hobbies- see above), and as I mentioned, most of my gaming friends are either married or in committed relationships, so neither did they. It is worth noting however (and the film does this too) that many gamers who are in relationships with NGs don't game as much, or stop gaming altogether. One guy even kept it secret from his wife! The problem for male gamers is that not a lot of women play, so finding someone who shares your interest can be difficult. When you do, don't let them go (trust me on this).

And lastly, the theory that all gamers are social misfits who worship the devil and revel in black magic. The film shows people who truly believe this. They're given equal time to explain why they feel the hobby is just one more way for Satan to corrupt the impressionable. All of these folks have, from what I can see, "found Jesus". Now I have no problem with anyone's personal beliefs so long as they don't think it gives them the right to pass judgement on everyone who doesn't believe as they do. Wanna take a wild guess where I'm going with this?

Hear for yourself some of the crap that comes out of their mouths. Rent the DVD. My personal favorite is the guy who "used to be a gamer", but now isn't because he realized that it was the Devil's greatest wish. In effect, his players' characters would rape and pillage as part of their regular adventures, and that was evil. Now, I've played in thousands of games in my life for dozens of systems, and I can't recall any game in which rape(this is imaginary rape for all the NGs reading this who are horrified) played a part whatsoever. Kinda makes you wonder what kinda game this guy ran-he talked about rape an awful lot. He was worried that it might influence real life behavior (just like those damn rock music lyrics).

His friend, another self-proclaimed Christian (again, no offense to those who call themselves Christian ... most of y'all aren't in the same category as this clown, i.e. the Bible-says-so, I'm-always-right-and-you're-going to-hell-cuz-you-don't-agree type) says that roleplaying games are wrong because the game master is setting himself up as a god, which as all of us who graduated from Catholic schools well know (yes, I did), is against the First Commandment. In effect, the Game master has control of an entire world and its population (the characters) in his mind, therefore he is their "god". This is a big no-no.

Following the logic of these jokers, we can make the jump that ANY writer of fiction is setting himself up as a god, because he in effect creates his own world and is responsible for any characters in it (who he also creates). Further, anyone who reads Crime and Punishment or Lolita runs the risk of uncontrollably murdering an old woman with an axe or shagging a 14-year-old, due to the horrible influences contained therein. (I've read both and done neither, in case you're wondering. It was in my Russian literature phase-don't ask.)

The movie really is worth seeing-you'll laugh at the geeks (both gamers and NGs) and learn a lot about the hobby if you don't already know. There's a great interview with Gary Gygax about the evolution of the hobby (Gary Gygax created D&D, for those who don't know) and its unfair media representation among other things. It covers all aspects of the hobby-tabletop miniature games, roleplaying games, and Live Action Roleplaying (LARP-ers), which I'm sure is what most NG's think of when they think of gamers in general.

A final word about the LARPers...these guys are dorks. Now, I am aware of the irony and hypocrisy of a gamer such as myself, who has just spent the last 16 or so paragraphs DEFENDING the hobby passing judgement on one subgroup, but the simple fact is that these people are, plain and simple, dorks. Dressing up and resolving conflicts with rock-paper-scissors is weird. Carrying around foam swords and beating each other with them in public parks is ridiculous. Observe the guy (yes-GUY) in the film who is dressed as a unicorn and carries a pugil-stick. Just in case any NG who reads this thinks this is the kind of "gaming" I take part in, rest assured, I don't.

I would like to take part in some gaming, though. That's a hint to all my gaming friends. You have my number.

God bless Gary Gygax.

-K

First post.

Hello all.
I begin this blog with regard to those of you who have recently received my somewhat verbose emails on a variety of subjects, mostly centering around events in my life and/or my opinions on things, but mostly in response to one friend who, upon receipt of said emails, hastily sent a one-liner back to me. To wit: "Get thee a blog."

I completely understand the annoyance of an inbox full of unwanted crap (who doesn't?). I also loathe being tacked onto email lists where it seems the majority of the recipients don't know the difference between "Reply" and "Reply to All", thus ensuring everyone on the list gets to read their insipid comments (and the ensuing responses to their comments, ad infinitum) regardless of their lack of significance or relevance to any but the original sender. And so, lest anything *I* write be unwanted crap, or worse, an inbox full of irrelevancies, my blog is born. You have to want to read it in order to get it.

I have my doubts that anyone will actually read this with any regularity. In fact, I voiced that very doubt to the very same friend at whose urging this blog was conceived, and she said I might be surprised. I think she was being polite. Guess we'll see.

For those who got the emails (otherwise known as my friends), it'll be more of the same. For those who didn't, it'll be me spouting forth on things that interest me (e.g.: writing, reading, comics, bagpiping), things that baffle me (Tom Green's career) and things that just piss me off(censorship in the name of morality).

See you soon.