Talk:Pulp magazine/Archives/2015

first sentence
The first sentence says pulps are incredibly *expensive* fiction. Reading/skimming the rest of the article I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be *inexpensive*. I am not familiar with it, but someone should change this I think..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.204.98 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

npov snobbism
In all of the literary articles, I detect a definate snobbism, which I would say should be considered bias. It's fine to point out that these attitudes exist, but I don't think that the article itself should reflect these attitudes. It needs to be more nuetral.

example: "A distinction can be made between an author who wrote for the pulps but later went on to transcend the limitations of the genre, and a "pulp author" who did not." This seems like it could be re-worded to remove appearance of 'snob bias.'
 * I agree, epspecially since no actual distinction is made in the list of authors. I've removed that sentence entirely. --Tysto 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 2

Renaming proposal
I propose that we move this article to Pulp (magazine) or Pulp Fiction (magazine), this seems to be the naming convention for most magazine articles (for example: Vogue (magazine) or Dragon (magazine)).--– sampi ( talk • contrib ) 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. In fact, the convention in Wikipedia is far from universal, and I have renamed plenty of articles to add (magazine). Unless a new standard has evolved, it is mainly used to identify magazines which are otherwise ambiguous e.g. to avoid the articles for Vogue, Dragon, and where "Magazine" is not a part of the actual title (compare Entrepreneur_Magazine, where it is a part of the title). In the same way that "(author)", "(musician)" etc. is added to a persons name only if there is more than one person shown. Examine Category:Science_fiction_magazines to see more examples of usage.


 * I suspect the proposal may be based on a misunderstanding. This is not about a magazine called "Pulp" but a publishing category, magazines of the type called "pulp magazines" (though pulp is used as a popular contraction, it isn't the main term. Pulp fiction is a later term used to refer to the type of writing, not the magazines; I think the article needs fixing). Notinasnaid 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Graham Greene
The article lists Graham Greene as a pulp author. Somehow that doesn't seem right. Not mentioned in Graham Greene. I found this list of magazine appearances, and only one is a pulp: the rest are post-pulp or slicks. The only pulp appearance (Master Thriller Series #22 1938) is with an excerpt reprinted from a novel; a pulp choosing to reprint part of one of your novels doesn't really make you a pulp author. Removed. Notinasnaid 08:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image of LashLarue Western
The little research I've done suggests that "Lash LaRue Western" was a comic book. As such, the picture does not belong here (and wouldn't even qualify as fair use). If anyone has an image of a Western genre pulp such as Thrilling Western or one of the many others it would be suitable. But I am removing it. I note the comment in the history "It pertains to the text as Dime Westerns are mentioned as one of the genres of pulp". Actually, no, specifically not: it lists "westerns" and adds "(also see Dime Western),". For some actual western pulps see http://www.the-forum.com/books/western.htm. Notinasnaid 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, Ah plumb reckon yer raht, pardner. KarlBunker 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian pulp fiction
I took that "see also" out simply because, though they may be the best idea since porn, books about lesbians have nothing to do with movies about gangsters. DoItAgain 02:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly speaking you didn't take it out, but replaced it with a link to Pulp-magazine which leads back to the same article. I'm going to put it back, because pulp magazines aren't the same things as movies about gangsters. Pulps cover a very broad scope (science fiction, westerns, proto-porn, crime, war, adventure, romance...) Notinasnaid 07:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a "see also" for gay male pulp fiction, as a counterpart to lesbian pulp fiction. Both of these genres come from paperback books, not pulp magazines, but they both closely relate to the pulp writing style and the pulp fiction market--when the cheap paperback books mostly replaced the pulp magazines in the 1950s.Stanford Brown 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Image
Why are you reverting it? There are no images on wikipedia that don't have that boarder, except things like equations or something. Stop doing it.  Troubleshooter   19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To paraphrase Alex Trebek, please rephrase your demand in the form of a request. KarlBunker 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See, that's fine :)   Troubleshooter    16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

a Question.
Do you folks think that it would be appropriate to include a paragraph detailing the nature of the film "Pulp Fiction" and its relevance to Pulp Fiction proper, within the context of this particular article? I am considering adding it.


 * I think it would be better to add that to the film's article; I don't think it belongs here. Hundreds of magazines, tens of thousands of stories, many millions of words were published for decades; pulps influenced lots of things, which makes pulps relevant to those things, but doesn't mean that those things are relevant to pulps, if you see what I mean. Mentioning the film here is enough. -- Akb4 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (please sign your posts)

Cleanup
Among other things, could someone knowledgable in this field turn all those list into prose? Thanks - Time Immemorial 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think the cleanup tag should remain on the article, please specify some other needed cleanups, because that one is flat-out misguided. The lists converted to prose would be insanely ugly and difficult to read. RedSpruce 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Passage About Interior Illustrations
This paragraph seems to have a demeaning tone to it, as if the illustrations were somehow inferior: Later pulps began to feature a few interior illustrations, depicting elements of the stories. The drawings were printed in black ink on the same cream-colored paper used for the text, and had to use specific techniques to avoid blotting on the coarse texture of the cheap pulp. Thus, fine lines and heavy detail were usually not an option. Shading was by crosshatching or pointillism, and even that had to be limited and coarse. Usually the art was black lines on the paper's background, but Finlay and a few others did some work that was primarily white lines against large dark areas.

Until more sophisticated methods of half-toning and other photographic treatments became affordable for smaller-budgeted publishers, most "black-and-white" illustrations were executed with black ink, and either a brush or pen, utilizing the techniques of "pen and ink" drawing. Sometimes they were done with "block" or "linoleum" prints. Either technique consists of cross-hatching and/or stippling (aka pointillism) in order to create the illusion of shading or grey areas. Heavily detailed black and white illustrations are still not amenable to newsprint; it is not as if the art of black and white illustration for print is some sort of lower art form. Also, while Finlay and others did do some illustrations which were predominantly black, it was still black ink printed on the paper - it is extremely unlikely that any publication has ever printed with white ink, except as an experiment or a mistake.

Proclivities (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the passage as demeaning to the artwork, but rather an honest discussion of the limitations of the medium. I also didn't read the mention of "white lines against large dark areas" as suggesting that white ink was used. The only part of the passage I question is the mention of "cream-colored paper". I've always assumed (though I don't know) that the paper was reasonably white when it was new, and has become yellowed with age. RedSpruce (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it struck me as demeaning, but upon re-reading it, I agree with your assessment; perhaps it was just the proximity of the word "cheap" in the passage. Proclivities (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pulp Fiction redirects here..."
It doesn't redirect here anymore. Fractious Jell (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phantom Detective 5-36.jpg
Image:Phantom Detective 5-36.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a fair use rationale. RedSpruce (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Famous and infamous characters of pulp fiction
This section's current title seems unnecessarily cumbersome, as such I'm retitlting it "Notable original characters". Feel free to revert if you object.

The list is also becoming quite lengthy. Although I have left it intact, citations should be eventually provided for each entry.

S. Luke 10:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Express your opinion about redirect of "Pulp Fiction"
Somone has suggested redirecting Pulp Fiction to the film Pulp Fiction (film) rather than the disambiguation page Pulp fiction. Feel free to express opinions at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 22. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pulps in the UK
''Although pulp magazines were primarily a US phenomenon, there were also a number of British pulp magazines published between the Edwardian era and World War Two. Notable UK pulps included Pall Mall Magazine, The Novel Magazine, Cassell's Magazine, The Sovereign Magazine, Hutchinson's Adventure-Story and Hutchinson's Mystery-Story.[4]''

Apart from the UK-produced 'pulps', many US ones were also available over here, being shipped over the Atlantic to the UK as ballast in empty ships returning home. These US magazines could then be obtained around UK ports such as Liverpool, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.58.132 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair Editing
I am removing references to Wildside Press as their contribution to modern pulp fiction is unknown in the pulp literature scene. Unless you allow inclusion of such organisations as Pulp Press, New Pulp Press, OOTG, Thug Lit, Beat to a Punch and Hard Case Crime (for God sake), whose work really does advance literary pulp fiction on a practically daily basis than, I see it as only fair and accurate some company whose work in the field in negligible not be mentioned here. Before you suggest I add these organisations myself, I have tried many times only to have a favoured wikipedia editor remove my input. - Pulpraider 25 January 2011 11:29 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulpraider (talk • contribs) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This line: "Pulps were printed on cheap paper with ragged, untrimmed edges." is a direct quote taken from one of those old dictionaries or whatever. Didn't check and doesn't matter because it's taken from the quote you see in the pulp fiction intro. You get what I'm saying? 84.61.139.153 (talk)

Original Characters
I don't think either Mack Bolan or Remo Williams should be in the pulp magazine section, since they were created for paperback books, not pulps.

Also, Guy N. Smith started writing almost two decades after the pulps had disappeared, so he shouldn't be here either. 176.61.93.235 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Haining's "The Classic Era of American Pulp Magazines"- Unreliable source?
The Classic Era of American Pulp Magazines by Peter Haining is cited as a source in this article, but there have been several criticisms of that book's factual accuracy by magazine historians. Ed Hulse in The Blood 'n' Thunder Guide to Collecting Pulps, in a survey of nonfiction about pulp magazines, states about The Classic Era of American Pulp Magazines that it is " highly idiosyncratic (it omits mention of numerous magazines, authors of importance, and even entire genres) and error riddled" and calls it "worthless as a reference" (p. 218). Similarly, the pulp fanzine "Back Numbers Can Be Easily Procured", in a review, states: The Classic Era of American Pulp Fiction covers some areas of pulp fiction well, but fails as a general reference work to the pulps as a whole...Adventure, All Story and Argosy are sadly under-represented. Burroughs and Howard and the other writers get slighted badly. With the exception of Spicy Western, you’d think nobody read western stories and the romance, sports,air war and general titles didn’t even exist... when Burroughs and Howard only rate acouple of paragraphs in a book on the history of the pulps, there’s some-thing wrong". http://efanzines.com/BackNumbers/Back_Numbers_Oct_01.pdf 176.61.97.121 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the Haining, largely because of the terrible reviews. I agree it should not be used as a source; there are better sources out there, particular for specialty areas such as the sf and weird magazines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)