Rise of the Scrappy Doos

 

*I prefer to name groups by how they name themselves but the latest version of Puppyness arising out of the fading away of the Sad Puppy brand doesn’t have a name of their own. Based on my earlier post on recent events, I think “The Scrappy Doos” is a decent moniker to cover a more disperate phenomanon.

scrappydooFirstly it carries on the puppy theme, secondly it encapsulates the relative threat level compared to other incarnations and thirdly it is a handy metaphor for the disconnect between how cool Scrappy thinks he is compared to how annoying he actually is.

Anyway, some people like Scrappy, so I hope it isn’t too demeaning a name and currently I don’t have a better label.

Compared with the Sads and Rabids, the Scrappy Doos are not a coordinated group, they may or may not have been involved with either Sad or Rabids campaigns in the past but if they were they would have been on the periphery. They tend not to make strong distinctions between the Sad and Rabid campaigns and can be seen as ‘monopuppists’ (i.e. the idea that really the two campaigns were one campaign in different forms). They tend to be more overt in their self-promotion. Just as the Sad Puppies were incorrectly described as being a group of Mormon men, the Scrappy Doos may be incorrectly decsribed as Catholic men.

In terms of existing movements they are closest to the Superversive movement and the Pulp Revolutions movement. Those two movements* can be seen as offshoots of the Rabid Puppies but this can be misleading. The Rabids had a core of straight Alt-Right griefers willing to do exactly what Vox Day told them to do for the lulz. Superversive began independently of the Rabids but has attached itself to Castalia for promotion and is focused on literary works (although of a right leaning nature). Pulp Revolution arose from the Castalia House blog and hence is more closely connected to Rabid Puppies but again is not the same as the griefing group.

[eta – paragraph went astray] Whereas the Rabids collectively were not particularly interested in the field of SFF, the Scrappy-Doos have more in common with the Sad Puppies in so far as they tend to be actively involved in writing, publishing and books. In this sense they are more like other groupings in fandom. However, where significant voices in Sad Puppies (Correia, Torgersen, Hoyt, Freer) had had some success in trad-publishing (mainly centred around Baen Books), the Scrappy Doos are involved with small publishing groups or self-published.

Time for an info-graphic.

puppyschematic

Names at the top indicate people who helped establish entities below. Dotted lines imply some degree of association. Arrowed lines imply on-going activity. Pink boxes are websites around which quasi-groups have formed organically to some degree. [eta: graphic tweaked a bit]

*[I’m using the word ‘movement’ generously here – we aren’t talking about huge numbers of people. ‘Tens’ rather than ‘hundreds’ I think]

 

Advertisements

85 comments

  1. Aaron Pound

    I think “Sad Losers” is a better description for that crew of clowns, but given how kind of pathetic Scrappy Doo turned out to be in the Scooby Doo movie, maybe that’s the same thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • camestrosfelapton

      Partial involvement. So, Vox Day was connected to Sad Puppies 2 but didn’t organise it or originate it etc

      I think the dashed line joining Brad T to MGC is an error – it should be a solid line as he is regular writer there.

      Liked by 1 person

    • greghullender

      Yes, I’ve always suspected that Brad, Larry, and Vox produced the list together. Then Vox split off because they objected to him putting so many of his own authors into it. The other differences exist (I claim) because both groups added a handful of names to their lists after the split.

      Liked by 1 person

      • JJ

        camestrosfelapton: I too suspect that but the evidence is too slim to assert it as a fact. Them main evidence is Larry saying the Evil League of Evil was consulted.

        Not true. I think that LC and BT were fully on-board with VD having the Rabid slate, and there’s plenty of evidence for it. BT left a 5th empty space on both Editor Short and Long so that VD could slot his name in. VD posted his slate only 5 hours after BT posted his, but already had a rabidized version of the SP logo ready, which had been created by the same artist. And much later, both BT and Hoyt told Worldcon members that they should be grateful that LC and BT “talked VD out of burning everything down completely” with the Rabid slate — an admission that they knew he was going to post it ahead of time, and were in discussions with him on it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Andrew M

        BT’s leaving blanks in the editor categories is not decisive, because he actually left blanks in a a lot of categories; there were only four in which he produced a full slate. The ‘talking VD out of burning everything down completely’ is more significant, I think, but I find it quite credible that they actually mean what they say here; he threatened a completely different slate, consisting entirely of destructive things, which would (or at least might) swamp them, and they negotiated a compromise.

        Like

  2. Cora

    Sarah Hoyt’s and the MCG’s Human Wave movement goes back to 2012, i.e. before either set of puppies. Here is the manifesto, published in March 2012: https://accordingtohoyt.com/2012/03/21/what-is-human-wave-science-fiction-3/

    It’s less dogmatic than later incarnations of puppy derived movements and I actually find some points to agree with in that manifesto. Apparently, “human wave” is also the name of a military attack tactic, but it’s not clear if Hoyt knew this, when she named the movement.

    Superversive SF as an idea predates both puppy movements as well, though it originally wasn’t J. Jagi Lamplighter’s or Jason Rennie’s thing, but goes back to a fantasy author called Tom Simon. Here is an essay from 2003 describing the principle: https://bondwine.com/2003/10/19/superversive/ To be fair, Lamplighter gave Tom Simon credit for the term.

    Like

  3. hoocott

    “Pulp Revolution arose from the Castalia House blog and hence is more closely connected to Rabid Puppies but again is not the same as the griefing group.”

    One aspect you are missing is Pulp Revolutions connections to #GamerGate.

    “the Scrappy-Doos have more in common with the Sad Puppies in so far as they tend to be actively involved in writing, publishing and books. In this sense they are more like other groupings in fandom”

    “the Scrappy Doos are involved with small publishing groups or self-published.”

    I can tell you like us. Come on Cam give it up.
    We are talking about the stuff you want to talk about read and writing the stories you want to read and write and having the fun you want to have.

    Certainly talking about heroism romance virtue and an actual tangible culture that wasn’t designed by a few cranky Marxist farts at the Frankfurt school is more fulfilling then virtue signaling to a bunch of triggered fainting snowflakes and their beta orbiters.

    Like

    • camestrosfelapton

      Hmmm “Gamergate”. To be honest I’m not sure the term has any meaning left in it. People claiming to be supporters of “Gamergate” say quite radically different things regarding what it was about, who was actually involved, what events were actually part of it and who their opponents were – to the extent that the term functionally describes nothing coherent. Any discussion about “Gamergate” rapidly becomes dull as at least one member of the discussion will insist that as the term “Gamergate” has been evoked that therefore the discussion is ACTUALLY about whatever hobby-horse they’ve attached to the name. It is even just TWO distinct usages but a babble of concepts which people claiming allegiance can draw no clear consensus.

      //Frankfurt school//

      I like my philosophy like I like my breakfasts – analytic. Damn, I’ve broken the joke.

      Liked by 2 people

      • camestrosfelapton

        Just to continue with that semantic-emptiness-of-gamergate thing: now clearly things happened, so there is a bunch of events. People can’t seem to agree on which of those bunch of events constitute “Gamergate” and I don’t have a handy way of resolving their differences over the term. Some people use it to describe that time a bunch of people (mainly men but not exclusively) harassed a number of women involved in video games development and criticism. Given those events had a real human cost and exposed a very nasty misogynistic subculture, that is what I tend to think of when somebody says “Gamergate” but if I say “that’s what Gamergate was” then I’ll get a bunch of people telling me otherwise. So, as away around that I call: [ that time a bunch of people (mainly men but not exclusively) harassed a number of women involved in video games development and criticism] “Gamershits” because it involved a bunch of people behaving really shitty who used video games as an excuse to behave really shitty. As I’m told “Gamergate” doesn’t mean [that time a bunch of people (mainly men but not exclusively) harassed a number of women involved in video games development and criticism] then clearly “Gamershits” is a different word with a different meaning and is distinct from “Gamergate”. Yet, somehow that also seems to make people who say they support “Gamergate” just as upset! Why? I’m talking about Gamershits not “Gamergate” which I’m repeatedly told was not [that time a bunch of people (mainly men but not exclusively) harassed a number of women involved in video games development and criticism]. So I really just don’t know anymore, it’s not like anybody else is offering up a better word for [that time a bunch of people (mainly men but not exclusively) harassed a number of women involved in video games development and criticism].

        Liked by 2 people

      • Mark

        There are quite a lot of links to GG among the main players. but none of them are definitive – you can’t point to one part and say that was GG-inspired while others weren’t. E.g. Larry was a GG supporter and tried to get them on-side with SP3, VD saw GG as a helpful bandwagon to jump onto, the Superversives got “Daddy Warpig” into their orbit after Larry had got him involved originally, etc etc. No doubt a lot of individual supporters saw connections as well. If you were to try to map GG into your diagram it would just be a vague diffuse cloud drifting over everything.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Nigel Quinlan

        I get the impression that those confused and confusing narratives and definitions are an ongoing, if diffuse, part of the campaign of abuse, a sort of gas-lighting to the effect that some version of a respectable rationale is more important than what it actually was and will eventually dilute the perception of GG as a harassathon.

        Liked by 3 people

      • camestrosfelapton

        This is freaky.
        You are right of course – but what is freaky is that I was nodding along to what you wrote but thinking it was a comment on my review of the novella This Census Taker.

        Now using the right context for your comment: yes, I think some of this arises out of shame and a way of people distancing themselves from some pretty shitty behaviour.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ligne

        Nigel Quinlan:

        i think that’s a lot of the motivation. but it’s been quite amusing to see the people gullible enough to believe the “ethics in games journalism” bumgravy (or at least gullible enough to believe that it might still be believable) increasingly being turned on by other ‘gaters.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mark

      I’ll actually partially agree with a tiny bit of what hoocot said – there are elements of the post-puppies who have mainly gone off to talk about the books they like and write the stories they want to read and – leaving aside the rhetoric they can’t let go of yet – that’s absolutely fine by me.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Aaron

      One aspect you are missing is Pulp Revolutions connections to #GamerGate.

      Their connections to GG makes the Pulp Revolutions guys pretty scummy.

      We are talking about the stuff you want to talk about read and writing the stories you want to read and write and having the fun you want to have.

      I always find it interesting that you Pup-adjacent guys think no one but you enjoys the books they read. Based on historical evidence, it is likely that both Cam and the typical commenter here are far more widely read than any of your Pulp Revolution dudes. It is actually probable that the typical commenter here is better read in the pulp genre than most of the Pulp Revolution dudes.

      Listening to you talk about pulp fiction is akin to that time when my sister was eleven and discovered Bob Marley. She launched into evangelizing it to everyone around her. In 1992. It was kind of adorable. You guys would be adorable if you didn’t arrogantly assume you had discovered a secret no one else already knew, and if you didn’t package your evangelizing with a healthy dose of angry Alt-Right bullshit.

      Certainly talking about heroism romance virtue and an actual tangible culture that wasn’t designed by a few cranky Marxist farts at the Frankfurt school is more fulfilling then virtue signaling to a bunch of triggered fainting snowflakes and their beta orbiters.

      I think most people would prefer to get their fiction without the side-order of stupid you bring to the table.

      Liked by 2 people

      • hoocott

        “if you didn’t arrogantly assume you had discovered a secret no one else already knew”

        This boggles my mind. “Cuz a couple of people somewhere who never talk about it (when was the last time you wrote about A Merrit? Lord Dunsany? Leigh Brackett?) knows a work no one else should talk about it. In fact they are “arrogant” for informing people who have not discovered it.”

        Is this a new iteration of the hipster “I did/was X before it was cool”? Or perhaps it is the base impetus of that sentiment.

        Who the heck cares who knew what when? You don’t own history Aaron.

        “if you didn’t package your evangelizing with a healthy dose of angry Alt-Right bullshit.”

        But that is more then half the fun. Anyway this is not true. I mean I am alt-right sure, but honestly most of Pulp Revolution is not and none of Superversive is as far as I know. Most are just conservatives and most of them are conservative by way of being Christian.

        Like

      • Mark

        “when was the last time you wrote about A Merrit? Lord Dunsany? Leigh Brackett?”

        I’m going to let Aaron have the gotcha on that one, seeing as you’ve teed him up so nicely, but in a wider context: Brackett was a double Retro Hugo finalist only last year, so the “us” of frequent WorldCon members very clearly know and respect the early pulp authors. Indeed, the whole point of the Retro Hugo is to allow authors of that era to be commemorated. If no-one cared about them then those awards wouldn’t exist.

        Liked by 2 people

      • camestrosfelapton

        I think you’d be happier if we did dislike Pulp or resent the renewed interest in it among these right-leaning SF groups. I can’t speak for everybody but I really don’t think most people commenting here dislike that aspect. If there are books bringing joy to your life then that’s great.

        Yes *obviously* there are going to be people who were into pre-war pulps before you guys were. For me it was a long time ago and it wasn’t a deep love affair. If I’m going to look back I’d rather read Wells or Conan-Doyle.

        But if we must play one-pulp-manship then may I recommend my series on Beware the Cat? If you are into the forgotten origins of English-language fantasy literature with an emphasis on wacky adventures then it is the BEST.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Aaron

        This boggles my mind.

        You seem to be easily boggled. No one is saying that you Pulp Revolution guys shouldn’t write about it. What is being said is that your assumption that you’ve discovered something that no one else knows about is unfounded. Let me clue you in: Lots of the people who you deride have read a lot of pulp fiction. You’re not discovering anything we didn’t already know about.

        But that is more then half the fun.

        Which is why no one wants to “join you”. Everyone who is not part of your sad little circle-jerk can love pulp fiction without the dollop of Grade A idiocy that infusing it with Alt-Right bullshit provides.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Aaron

        when was the last time you wrote about A Merrit? Lord Dunsany? Leigh Brackett?

        I’ll take this as asking “When was the last time you wrote about pulp fiction”. Here:

        Tarzan of the Apes
        The Return of Tarzan
        The Beasts of Tarzan
        The Moon Men
        I Am a Barbarian
        The Mad King

        And some more modern examples of pulp fiction:

        Expedition Beyond: The Anderson Theory
        Spear of Seth
        The 5 Moons of Tiana
        Lord of Darkness.

        Those are just the books I have reviewed. The list of pulp fiction I have read is substantially longer.

        Liked by 3 people

      • hoocott

        You know what Mark, I’m not even mad.

        In fact your comments make me more then happy.
        Too wit: “very clearly know and respect the early pulp authors.”
        Between this Aaron’s doubling down on “I was A pulp fan before it was cool” (swear to god he is inches away from writing up reviews of old Pulp “Just to prove those PulpRevs wrong!!”) and Cam’s continued obsession with us along with the almost loving concussions of “they tend to be actively involved in writing, publishing and books. In this sense they are more like other groupings in fandom.” “the Scrappy Doos are involved with small publishing groups or self-published.” the Olbermann window has clearly shifted.

        Who knows in a year or two open earnest shouts of Pulp love from your fandom may become common place and we will get novels of left wing protagonists going on adventures displaying bravery honor and other alpha male virtues to save the girl and at the end wrap his bronzed steal thewed arms around her slim frame. “I give myself to you” she will say. Then he will remember. “No. I take” he will reply. In the background a nuke goes off turning R’lyeh to glass as their lips meet in a bruising kiss.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mark

        Hoocott, would you like to be more specific about the presence of two Brackett stories in last year’s retro hugos? You seem to be dismissive of it, and the conclusion I draw from that evidence, but aren’t explaining why.

        The thing about the “pulp revolution” is that IMO it’s a good thing – as I said earlier, people finding books they love and spreading that love is an unalloyed good – but there’s this unfortunate rhetoric which seems to try to deny that others can like the same stuff. I find that very odd, and frankly a bit counter-factual – why would pulp authors still be in print if no-one had been paying attention to them? Why would they feature in retrospective awards? Why would fannish sites like Black Gate be publishing articles on old pulp if there was no interest? Why would there be a market for stories in heroic fantasy magazines (eg HFQ)? Why would a mainstream publisher produce a pulp-tribute anthology like Old Venus (ed. by those obscure figures Dozois and GRRM?) and why would people like me buy it?

        Liked by 3 people

      • KR

        ** Looks over at shelf full 1920s Soviet science fiction novels depicting brawny, manly, working-class “left-wing protagonists going on adventures displaying bravery, honor and other alpha male virtues.” Remembers reading about Lenin and the cult of masculinity, outdoorsiness, physical strength. Leafs through art history books of socialist realism murals and friezes. Rolls eyes and goes back to doing something more productive.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Aaron

        Between this Aaron’s doubling down on “I was A pulp fan before it was cool”

        You wanted to know the last time I had written about pulp. If you didn’t want the question answered, you shouldn’t have asked it. Trying to cast it as “doubling down” at this point just makes you look silly.

        swear to god he is inches away from writing up reviews of old Pulp

        You mean like the numerous reviews of Edgar Rice Burroughs novels that I have already written?

        The point is not that we were reading pulp “before it was cool” (and if you think the “Pulp Revolution” has or is going to make pulp “cool”, you are sadly mistaken). The point is that when you run in here and try to tell Camestros that he should join you in reading and loving pulp fiction, you’re nothing but a Johnny-come-lately. Pretty much everyone here already knows about pulp fiction, and pretty much everyone here has already read a fair amount of it. You don’t bring anything new to the conversation except a bunch of Alt-Right jargon served with a huge heaping helping of stupidity.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Cora

        I’ve read a shit ton of pulp fiction: Edgar Rice Burroughs, Leigh Brackett, H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, Poul Anderson, C.L. Moore, Edmund Hamilton, Clarke Ashton Smith, E.E. Smith, A.E. van Vogt and so on. Beyond SFF pulp fiction, I’ve also read The Spider, The Shadow, Doc Savage, etc… In fact, it was the anime adaptation of Edmund Hamilton’s Captain Future that ignited my love for SF.

        I read those old pulp authors, even though I lived in a non-English-speaking country, where English language books were hard to come by. And I’m still very fond of many of them, though there are a few I can no longer enjoy like I once did. In the 1940 Retro Hugos, I ranked Leigh Brackett und Isaac Asimov over Borges, for though Borges was clearly the better writer, I loved Asimov and Brackett more. I even write a series in the style of the hero pulps of the 1930s, though I suspect it wouldn’t be to your taste. I’m not the only one either, people have been writing pulp homages for years and New Pulp is a thing that didn’t need to be reinvented-.

        So like many of us here say, those pulp era authors are not nearly as obscure as you think they are and in fact many of us have read and enjoyed them. And if you’re just discovering and enjoying them now, that’s great for you. Have fun! If you want to write stories and novels in the style of the old pulps, go ahead! If you do it well enough, I might even read them.

        In short, no one here hates the pulps and we’re happy that people celebrate the fiction they love. And the Pulp Revolution movement is one of the more productive things to come out of the whole puppy mess. What we do object to is the politicised rhetoric and the name calling and also how you’re shoehorning dead pulp authors who cannot object into your political agenda (or maybe that’s just me).

        Liked by 1 person

    • greghullender

      The problem is in your last paragraph:

      Certainly talking about heroism romance virtue and an actual tangible culture that wasn’t designed by a few cranky Marxist farts at the Frankfurt school is more fulfilling then virtue signaling to a bunch of triggered fainting snowflakes and their beta orbiters.

      Name calling is childish. Normal adults don’t like to associate with people who indulge in it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • hoocott

        “Name calling is childish. Normal adults don’t like to associate with people who indulge in it.”

        U Wut M8?

        Read the responses to my comments. Read the article. Read Cam’s article about Jeffro’s review of Jupiter Arising.
        Every dang person here is a name caller!!!

        Not that there is anything wrong with that.
        Still how the heck do you see my name calling but not everyone else’s?
        You got a severe blind spot there Greg.

        Like

      • Aaron

        Read the responses to my comments.

        No one called you any names in the responses to your comment.

        Read the article.

        Camestros didn’t call anyone any names in the article.

        Read Cam’s article about Jeffro’s review of Jupiter Arising.

        Camestros didn’t call anyone any names in that article.

        That’s three strikes.

        Liked by 1 person

      • hoocott

        Aaron
        “No one called you any names in the responses to your comment.”
        “You literally called me stupid in your comment”
        “Camestros didn’t call anyone any names in the article.”
        The name of the friggin article calls Pulprevolution and Superversive Scrappy Doos emphasis on Doos
        “Camestros didn’t call anyone any names in that article.”
        In the article she calls jeffro something along the lines of a basement virgin.

        Are you all insane? Do you even read? Even know what you are saying?

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //The name of the friggin article calls Pulprevolution and Superversive Scrappy Doos//

        No it didn’t. The article says that Pulp Rev & Superversive are the two movements the Scrappy Doos are closest too NOT that those two movements are “Scrappy Doos”. It’s right there in the text – different but related things and also shown that way in the diagram. Reading comprehension helps – seriously.

        Liked by 1 person

      • greghullender

        @hoocott
        Try and be a little more specific. Nearly all the comments here are thoughtful and well-written. We’re having a grown-up conversation. Yours is just about the only comment that comes across as juvenile.

        It is certainly true that there are people on the left who can be childish as well. They generally resort to taunts, not name-calling, but I agree it amounts to the same thing, and it’s just as annoying as what you did. I don’t see much of that in this thread, though.

        Like

      • Aaron

        “You literally called me stupid in your comment”

        No. I said you bring a side-order of stupid to the table with your Alt-Right bullshit. Your inability to understand what is written does not change not-name-calling into name-calling.

        The name of the friggin article calls Pulprevolution and Superversive Scrappy Doos emphasis on Doos

        That’s not name calling. The only person who is saying “emphasis on Doos” is you. Once again, your inability to understand what you read is no one’s problem but yours.

        In the article she calls jeffro something along the lines of a basement virgin.

        No, he does not. You really need to stop lying and thinking it will impress anyone.

        You’re still batting .000

        Liked by 1 person

      • greghullender

        Oops. Your specifics came while I was writing my post. Okay, let’s look at them.

        “You literally called me stupid in your comment”

        Not quite. He described your text (the same paragraph I objected to) as “a side-order of stupid.” I think “childish” is a better description than “stupid,” but neither one amounts to calling you a made-up name like “snowflake.”

        “The name of the friggin article calls Pulprevolution and Superversive Scrappy Doos emphasis on Doos”

        Now that is a reasonable point. Even he starts by apologizing for doing it. I don’t know who “scrappy doo” is (other than a sidekick to Scooby Doo in some show I must have missed) so I can’t tell why that might be offensive. But the “doo” here has nothing to do with feces (I don’t think), which seems to be what has you upset. He’s being childish on purpose here (you’re supposed to laugh at the joke) but I’ll agree that I didn’t like that much either.

        “In the article she calls jeffro something along the lines of a basement virgin.”
        Without a link, I don’t know which article you’re talking about. However, I’m not talking about insulting people in general; adults do that all the time. I’m talking about making up a silly name and then trying to insult people by using that against them.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Aaron

        Without a link, I don’t know which article you’re talking about.

        hoocott appears to be referring to this part of the article:

        “The last time I discussed a piece from the Castalia House blog I was forced to wonder if the reviewer had ever seen any movies. This time I’m forced to wonder if the writer actually knows any women or people in general?”

        hoocott appears to have taken this to be calling Jeffro a “basement virgin”. It isn’t, but like most Alt-Right guys, hoocott has amazingly thin skin, so any negative commentary on his idols is taken as “name-calling”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • greghullender

        The point is, if I say you’re an ignoramus, that’s insulting, but it’s not childish. But if I call you a zorb groggler, that comes across as puerile. An adult might do it once to make a joke, but to do it over and over–and continually mint new terms–that’s something you guys really need to grow out of.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Lurkertype

    @Mark-k: I loved “Old Venus” and told everyone to buy it. I haven’t gotten “Old Mars” yet but I hear Venus is better anyway.

    I read pretty much all the Edgar Rice Burroughs my high school library had, and it was a lot. Tons of Barsoom and some Pellucidar and Tarzan. It was all shelved in the SFF section right next to the old guard and the New Wave. No distinction between ERB, Heinlein, and Samuel Delany. I probably read Doc Smith on the school bus right before or after “Dhalgren”. I loved Leigh Brackett and CL Moore; oh, to travel the spaceways and mean streets with Northwest Smith! To fight evil with Kim Kinnison and family! And they’re all still in print.

    The real boost in pulp interest came when Project Gutenberg started making so much available. Which was before we had e-readers, or even the WWW. You didn’t have to buy a collection any more, it was there free. I had pulp on my Palm Pilot; I have it on my Kindle.

    So we’re glad more people are learning about pulp. We’d love to talk to you about it and make suggestions, except you keep calling us childish made-up names and saying we don’t really like what we’ve spent huge chunks of our lives reading.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 6/28/17 Hot Patootie, Bless My Soul, I Really Love That Pixel Scroll | File 770
  6. greghullender

    Okay, I’ll confess that I don’t like pulp, and I didn’t like it ~50 years ago either. Even as a kid, I thought pulp stories were poorly written and made it hard to suspend disbelief. For example, I read Leigh Brackett’s “Skaith” novels in 1976 and to to this day I remember the intrusive narration, the editorializing, the unnatural dialogue, and the impossibility of life on Mercury–much less the idea of a baby raised by intelligent life on Mercury. Or that climate change on a planet would also cause its core to cool down. And the political message was suffocating.

    On the other hand, I’ll admit that even 40 years later, I remember what the three novels were about as well as a number of the big ideas; they definitely made an impression. I can see how someone with different priorities might like that kind of thing. It’s just not for me, and it never will be, but I’m not telling anyone else they can’t reach such stories nor that they’re wrong to like them.

    The problem I see with the “Pulp Revolution” folks isn’t that they like fiction that I don’t, it’s that they really are trying to say that no one should read anything else, and that anyone who does has got something wrong with him/her.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Cora

      I was so used to bad and straight up wrong science in old SF back then that I rolled my eyes on the “intelligent life on Mercury” and proceeded to ignore it. The politics were pretty glaring, too. The “welfare states are evil” message in the Skaith novels went over my teenaged head (simply because I didn’t recognise any welfare state I knew in the ridiculous caricatures US science fiction authors created), but the evil space hippies irked me, because everybody at the time thought hippies were pretty damn cool and certainly not evil. But the books were still compelling and linger in my mind, long after other novels I read at the same time or later have long faded. I hated that Brackett killed off Eric John Stark’s wise woman girlfriend, since she was awesome. Though her death scene packed an emotional punch.

      Like

  7. Kat Goodwin

    Well I don’t know, if this guy is any example of that group, I think it has less to do with liking/disliking pulp fiction of the 1930’s-1950’s in general and more ideological. Jirel of Joiry has been a seminal influence on a lot of woman writers, there are plenty of pulp roots to 1970’s movements like feminist SF and Afrofuturism and to current stuff today. But that’s obviously not acceptable to them. It has to be certain kinds of heroes, certain plots, certain political viewpoints that are autocratic and conservative or are seen as sufficiently macho — stuff that wasn’t in all the pulp fiction of the past. And the sneer is about not embracing and advocating those ideologies, rather than about writing styles and romantic SFF traditions. Quite a lot of the pulp back then was socialist in theme, so it’s kind of funny they pick that time period, but then it’s again clearly not all the pulp authors they are interested in. It’s a revolution, so they’re reinventing pulp into whatever shape they find pleasing, from the sound of it. It’s reactionary neo-pulp. But even so I’m not really seeing a connection between Lord Dunsany and Leigh Brackett there.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Cora

      Yes, this. The Pulp Rev folks seem to want to reduce pulp to something that supports their political talking points, while ignoring that the pulp fiction was so much more than their narrow, reduced view of it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Aaron

      But even so I’m not really seeing a connection between Lord Dunsany and Leigh Brackett there.

      I think the thought process is something like “It is old, therefore it must be pulp, and we like pulp, so they are the same!”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Aaron

        I had almost forgotten Jeffro’s obsession with declaring Appendix N to be the ultimate authority on good fantasy fiction.

        Like

      • Kat Goodwin

        Oh, you mean like D&D? So Middle-Earth and Narnia are pulp now? That’s confusing.

        Hard Case Crime has done a good job on a pulp revival. They don’t do SFF that often, but they do have it as part of the mystery crime pulp and pulp reissues. My husband liked Stephen King’s Joyland that he did with them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KR

        (Sunday beer, ideology and recruitment theme song, to the tune of Dr Pepper)

        I drink like a Marxist and I’m proud
        I used to feel alone in a crowd
        Now if you look around these days
        There seems to be a Marxist craze!
        Oh I’m a Marxist
        He’s a Marxist
        She’s a Marxist
        We’re both Marxists
        Wouldn’t you like to be a Marxist too!
        Drink like a Marxist!
        Drink like a Marxist!

        Liked by 4 people

    • Cora

      “he shat out a Cultural Marxist porn filled stream of diarrhea…”

      Now I want to know what you have to eat to shit out a cultural arxist porn filled stream of diarrhea.

      Like

    • Jenora Feuer

      Of course, while he was still married to his second wife, accusing him of being a Marxist might not have been seen as ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, Heinlein did active work for Upton Sinclair’s ‘End Poverty in California’ political campaign during the depression. His more active rightward shift (he would work for the Goldwater campaign a couple of decades later) mostly followed around the time he married Virginia.

      You can’t really talk about Heinlein’s politics without specifying which part of his life you’re talking about. People are complicated.

      Like

  8. steve davidson

    whew!

    Great piece/graphic. And of course I agree nearly 100%.

    Couple of things: one of the alt-right stated “tactics” is to deliberately obfuscate what their message is, who is involved, what they stand for so as to tie anyone criticizing it up in “but that’s not what we said” knots.

    It’s not reading comprehension that’s the issue, it’s not understanding that words, in context, have certain specific meanings. If you forget/don’t know that, you can easily find something to bitch about in anything written, becase the meaning is not what the writer intended, it is what the reader wants to think it means.

    “Pulp Revolution”…have these people never heard of Haffner Press, that has been publishing reprint collections of pulp (very fne editions) for years? Or how about the Old Time Radio Archives, or Pro Se Press…there’s another company whose name escapes me that is doing “ACE Doubles”, and on and on. (oh, and that online mag named Amazing Stories that has one foot planted in 1926 and the other in 2017….)

    Alt-rt and associated thinkers seem to delberately forget/ignore history so they can reinvent it and then claim it as their own.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jenora Feuer

      Doesn’t quite scan. Maybe ‘SuperversiveCastillDragAppendix-N-Adorers’?

      Hmm, problem is that ‘Appendix’ starts on an unemphasized beat (the emphasis being on the ‘pend’ part) but most of the other words tend to end on the unemphasized, and that word is pretty much trochaic heptameter (or probably trochaic hexameter with a closing spondee).

      Maybe ‘SuperCastilDragonMadAppendix-N-Adorers’? To add ‘Mad Genius Club’ in there.

      Why yes, I have overthought this, and I do have more important things to do, thanks for asking.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. Kathodus

    I guess Torgersen’s Blue Collar Spec Fic thing hasn’t really taken off enough for it to be included?

    Re pulp fiction – I really started reading up on it in the early 00s, when a book collector friend saw how little I’d read and, knowing my love for Lovecraft, recommended a bunch of authors, gave me a couple of his more beat-up books, and told me about bookfinder.com (don’t really use it any more, but that was a great site back then). Of course, a lot of SFF I picked arbitrarily from my library as a child was pulpish, but I don’t recall most of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Kathodus

    Oh yeah, and about Pulp Revolution – it seems to me that all the Puppy-adjacent groups – Superversive, Pulp Revolution, MGC – assume that people who don’t necessarily read the same things they read
    1) know nothing about the books the Puppies love (pulp, nuggety-nuggets, etc.)
    2) only read based on the author’s political affiliation, gender/sex, or race.
    3) don’t actually enjoy what they read.
    4) care only about turning the entire world Marxist.

    I also get the feeling that a lot of the more GG- and RP-related groups were, until recently, mostly gamers who read very little. Some of them seem to be in the process of discovering the classics (yay! fun!), while there are others who are just griefers. None of them seem capable of believing that people they consider their enemies are also interested in and have read that material. It is a good thing to see them branching out from half-baked cultural criticism into talking about SFF books they enjoy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lurkertype

      They’ll need to ignore the drubbing we’re giving “A Taste of Honey” in the other thread. It’s a gay black romance, and the romance lovers and the gay man are hating on it.

      Like

  11. Pingback: AMAZING NEWS: 7/2/2017 - Amazing Stories

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s