How Do You Know? Options

[Derrick]

This question is primarily for the writers but please, don't let that stop anybody and everybody from chiming in with their 75 cents. Here it goes:

When writing a pulp story, how do you know when you've gotten it right?

On the opposing appendage, how do you know when you've gotten it wrong?

[Ron Fortier]

If it reads exactly like every other modern day action-adventure story out there, I know it's not right. Hard to explain for sure. Yet, when it reads like something that would have been found in a 30s pulp mag, complete with the proper mood, atmosphere, slang and sensibilities of the era, then I know I've hit the bullseye. And not always an easy thing to do.

[Richard Lee Byer...]

I think this is a difficult question because each of the great pulp writers was an original. They didn't all write alike. But I think it might be fair to say that a good pulp story has a fast pace, a strong plot, and, within limits, places a higher value on the colorful and exotic than on realism.

[Ron Fortier]

Realism doesn't enter into pulp, Richard. If its real, then its non-fiction and totally not pulp.

[Richard Lee Byer...]

I think realism enters into pulp to the limited degree that, as in any fiction, you can't push the implausible TOO far. If the reader hits a point in the story where he says, "Now that's just stupid," then you've lost him and it's a bad story.

[cougar18]

I think realism enters into pulp to the limited degree that, as in any fiction, you can't push the implausible TOO far. If the reader hits a point in the story where he says, "Now that's just stupid," then you've lost him and it's a bad story.

Is that realism or suspension of disbelief? I am saying this as someone who is not a writer, but rather looking at things from the reader/ viewer/ fan/ etc. For example, we know that a blood transfusion for a victim of vampirism would cause the victim to go into anaphylactic shock (spelling?) yet while reading Dracula, we completely suspend disbelief because we are enjoying the story, plus we know Lucy is a goner anyway.
I was recently watching that John Boorman movie Excalibur, and jeez, is it pretty bad to the modern viewer. I know it is meant to be shakespearean, but the over acting, dodgy accents (where the heck is Arthur meant to be from? Why is John Boorman's daughter so unable to act? etc) and some really drug-induced moments in the film (by the director, not me. I don't take anything illegal) just leave me scratching my head.

On the other hand, movies like the old Flash Gordon, King Kong('33), Sinbad, and so on, have little realism, ranging from a fair share, to none at all. Yet each are equally enjoyable. And all require suspension of disbelief.

Just sayin'. I know I am not a writer, just more of a fan.

[Derrick]

Is that realism or suspension of disbelief? I am saying this as someone who is not a writer, but rather looking at things from the reader/ viewer/ fan/ etc. For example, we know that a blood transfusion for a victim of vampirism would cause the victim to go into anaphylactic shock (spelling?) yet while reading Dracula, we completely suspend disbelief because we are enjoying the story, plus we know Lucy is a goner anyway.
I was recently watching that John Boorman movie Excalibur, and jeez, is it pretty bad to the modern viewer. I know it is meant to be shakespearean, but the over acting, dodgy accents (where the heck is Arthur meant to be from? Why is John Boorman's daughter so unable to act? etc) and some really drug-induced moments in the film (by the director, not me. I don't take anything illegal) just leave me scratching my head.

On the other hand, movies like the old Flash Gordon, King Kong('33), Sinbad, and so on, have little realism, ranging from a fair share, to none at all. Yet each are equally enjoyable. And all require suspension of disbelief.

Just sayin'. I know I am not a writer, just more of a fan.

I think it's just as important for readers to chime in with their opinion on this topic as the writers. After all, where would we be without each other? So I thank you for your thoughts.

P.S. You'll never be able to convince me that EXCALIBUR is anything less than a masterpiece. I LOVE that movie

[Richard Lee Byer...]

Realism is one of those tricky words that can mean more than one thing. It can refer to a particular literary movement, and if you're using it that way, then it has nothing to do with pulp.

But I was using it to refer to the subjective feeling of reality that holds while the reader is engrossed in a story. So yes, I was indeed referring to the suspension of disbelief. To what you can get the audience to buy into and what you can't.

To a degree, this can be a function of when the story was written and/or takes place. Somehow, we can find it in our hearts to cut Bram Stoker a break when it comes to transfusions without blood matching. If a modern writer telling a contemporary vampire story did the same thing, we might not be able to get past it.

Suspension of disbelief can vary according to genre, too. If Doc Savage ends up on an uncharted full of island full of dinosaurs, no problem. That's the kind of thing we expect Doc to do. If the Continental Op ends up in the same lost world, it's apt to strike us as ludicrous.

[cougar18]

I think it's just as important for readers to chime in with their opinion on this topic as the writers. After all, where would we be without each other? So I thank you for your thoughts.

P.S. You'll never be able to convince me that EXCALIBUR is anything less than a masterpiece. I LOVE that movie

And I can see why. The visuals are very strong. One of the great thing about 80's fantasy movies, such as Conan, Krull, Labryinth, Dark Crystal and so on. (And I know Krull is no great movie either, but I love it. Childhood memories coming back to life all over again.) To me though, the acting lets it down.
John Boorman can be hit or miss, whether it is his sequel to The Exorcist which is dire, or Deliverance, which is disturbing and a well made thriller/ horror film. I don't want to sound like I am criticising it, but rather looking at the film as both a horror movie and a thriller. Hope and Glory is also a great movie.

But for every movie he does, there's a 'Tiger's Tail' or 'Zardoz' or the above 'Exorcist 2: The heretic'.

[Derrick]

The only thing I remember about KRULL is that cool as hell multi-switchblade boomerang thingie the hero used. Now there's a movie I wouldn't mind seeing remade.

[cougar18]

The only thing I remember about KRULL is that cool as hell multi-switchblade boomerang thingie the hero used. Now there's a movie I wouldn't mind seeing remade.

The Krull of the title. Yeah, a remake would be cool, but it would need a lot of story rewrites and the addition of other details. The original needed work in regards to the story and plot.

Personally, my fond memories of the film are the mistress of the spider, the crystal spider and its web. I remember being freaked out by the villains of the film, such as the beast, and his soldiers/ henchmen.
Also, his henchthings could take on the form of another, as long as they offed the original. What really freaked me out as a kid was when they were killed, after assuming a new form, they made this really creepy scream, combined with them opening their black eyes...and then some kind of slug worm thing crawling out of their armour. Scary as a kid.

Lysette Anthony was really fit in that film too, although for some bizarre reason, they dubbed her voice. She had a really nice, soft voice too.

[Percival Constan...]

To be honest, I don't know. I just write what I want to write. I leave the classification part to people better suited than me.

[AaronSmith]

I know I've gotten it right when I go back and reread the story several days or a week or longer after I've finished it and things in the story surprise me, like a line of dialogue that sounds better than I'd realized when i wrote it or how I tied certain scenes or details together to have a meaning that I didn't consciously intend them to have. If, in that rereading, I discover things I didn't realize were there when I wrote it, then I know my instincts were working well and I let the writer in me take over when I did the work.

I know something's wrong when I can't lose myself in the story, when it doesn't, at least partially, feel like somebody else wrote it.


And then of course there are those occasions, rarely I'm happy to report, when I screw something up in a story and don't catch it. That only seems, so far, to happen when airplanes are involved. Luckily, Ron Fortier's there to catch my screw-ups when that happens!

[Bobby Nash: Writ...]

This question is primarily for the writers but please, don't let that stop anybody and everybody from chiming in with their 75 cents. Here it goes:

When writing a pulp story, how do you know when you've gotten it right?

On the opposing appendage, how do you know when you've gotten it wrong?

Good question. I'm not really sure I have a good answer though. I kind of just know, y'know? It's like art, you may not be able to explain it, but you can tell. For me, stories are a lot like that.

Bobby