Fanfiction -- No Longer a Dirty Word in Fiction?

For this week's roundtable, let's talk about fan fiction. For a long time, it was synonymous with both "amateur" by professionals and "theft" by IP owners. But that has seemed to be changing as time moves on. So, this one is for all the fan-fic writers out there. Let's chat.

What is your experience with fan-fic?

Angelia Sparrow: I got into pro writing from fanfic. I have done a few filed off pieces (took an old Star Wars fiction, made Luke a girl and Han a cat-girl, kept the plot, changed the end)

Kay Iscah: I've written four or five fanfiction novels, including a perspective trilogy (same story from 3 different limited perspectives), a novella, and some short pieces. But I'm careful to separate it under a different pen name from my professional work, and think it's important to respect the copy right holder's wishes when it comes to writing fanfiction. I've also edited or beta read stories for others.

Ed Erdelac: I started out writing Star Wars fanfic and was eventually hired to write the real thing a couple of times. My last novel was a thinly disguised Friday The 13th fanfic. 

Bobby Nash: I started out writing the characters I knew and loved. That helped me learn the basics of writing and eventually it led to creating my own characters and telling their stories.

Jana Oliver: My first few stories were fan-fic though I never uploaded those so no one else has read them. All three were book length (a Dr Who and 2 Babylon 5s). My fan-fic proved I could handle plotting and the story structure, and so I started writing books set in my own worlds.

I do not read fan-fic, especially anything based on my main UF series due to the legal implications. I just ignore that those exist, though I was kinda jazzed when they first appeared.

Danielle Procter Piper: The most valuable thing I've learned in writing fanfiction is that another writer is going to jump you and nitpick your work, telling you how you're not following the original ideas to the letter. It's fanfiction. I can do what I want. 

Susan Roddey: Oh, do I have thoughts on this... Let me preface this by saying fanfiction writers are absolutely lifting IP from the creators. That's just the way of the craft. HOWEVER... I cut my writing teeth on fan fiction. Granted, most of it is terrible and will never, ever see the light of day beyond what used to exist on Livejournal and in old Yahoo! Groups, but it helped me learn how to write. When the rules of the world are pre-defined, it's easier to focus on technique - dialogue, plot, characterization, etc. I took what I learned playing in others' sandboxes and used it to create my own original work.

Nope, wrong kind of fan.

Jason Bullock: I have had a little experience with fan fiction of owned IP. I have written several novellas and short stories of public domain characters. My family has written several works of fan-fic of sci-fi television series however. I have read several fan-fic series including sci-fi from movies and television for entertainment as well as creative inspiration.

Maya Preisler: I’ve been writing fanfic for about thirty years, though it’s only recently that I’ve started “publishing” stories on AO3 for others to read. My most popular work is an ongoing epic series that currently has around 263k words and around 16k page views.

Bertram Gibbs: For several years, on top of my original stories, I was given the chance to write a few DC Comic stories for this online fan fiction group. My first was a tribute to the 80s Justice League series (‘The Return of BWAH-HAH-HA’) where Plastic Man, Blue Beetle (Ted Kord) Booster Gold (with Skeets) take on Lex Luthor using their combined powers of annoyance. That was because DC didn’t want to publish the novel (rubes). It was so well received, I was invited to write a few more (a time travel Batman story and a JSA piece). And if invited here, I’ll be more than happy to share them with you.

What are the pros of writing fan-fic that you've experienced?

Maya Preisler: First and foremost, fan fiction has become a form of self-care for me; it allows me to escape to another galaxy and process my thoughts and feelings through fictional characters. Fan fiction has brought me several friendships, including meeting one of my readers at DragonCon. Having a community of readers who value and support my writing encourages me to persist and continue long past when I would normally have abandoned a story. I also cannot overemphasize how good it feels as a writer to wake up to comments, kudos, and other notifications. Receiving positive feedback is also an excellent dopamine boost.

Additionally, writing fan-fic assists me in growing and developing my skills. As someone who often gets mired down in the details while writing, fan-fic empowers me to practice by skipping the steps (like naming characters) which would normally cause roadblocks for me. This allows me to focus on the details of my writing such as foreshadowing, grammar, word use, dialogue, descriptions, and even story flow. After two years of consistent fan-fic practice, I can see already see where my writing has improved.

Susan Roddey: I think the pros are very much what I mentioned above -- it's a sandbox. You don't have to worry about keeping the details of the world straight because those who would read your work in that world are already familiar with the rules. It takes a large part of the stress of writing off the table so it becomes easy to pick the skill you want to develop and practice. I learned character voice by emulating well-known characters. I learned how to build a plot by fixing the things I saw wrong in the properties I love. It also gives writers a sort of neutral ground to play with gender identity and sexual orientation because again, the rules are set but can be manipulated so long as you keep the changes within the confines of the character's predefined personality. It does also create a sense of community - a place where people can belong. It's a fantastic arena for outcasts because we can find common ground among other outcasts. For the most part, it's a very accepting and loving community. I met nearly all of my friends as a result of fanfic communities.

Danielle Procter Piper: The benefits of fanfiction are that it's good practice writing, immediate feedback, and can help establish you as an author worth following.

Bertram Gibbs: It’s refreshing to write stories that I feel have yet to have been explored in the comics and enhance known characters. As a writer, there’s always that ‘what if’ moment where an interesting story comes from your soul and you hope that the writers of the stories you hold dear will share that thought. And when they don’t, you know that it’s up to you to put those thoughts to paper (or computer), to experiment with the beloved characters physically and/or emotionally, and create unexplored twists.

Kay Iscah: I think fan-fic can be a good training ground for writers. It's functionally not much different than franchise writing, except you have fewer rules to follow and no hope of a paycheck. Using another writer's characters well involves study of those characters and building a deep knowledge of their world. Fan fiction writing at it's best is a pure love of the characters and the craft of writing. It's writing for joy and not profit, a modern version of retelling stories around a campfire.

Jason Bullock: I have found inspiration creatively with fan-fic. I have written several fan-fiction stories in scripts for fan comics, including Star Trek Next Generation, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, X-FILES, and Murdoch Mysteries. I found writing those particular IPs gave me the challenge to put myself into the experiences of exotic universies helps me stretch my range. Meek characters, hubris-ridden oligarchs, otherworldly interloper, all were subject to me writing them in inside their own skin. How would they act? How would they talk? Why would they react to situations they would be placed in? These are a few of questions that I would need to familiarize myself with about the characters I was writing.

Bobby Nash: It’s good practice. It’s a fun hobby. You can polish your writing and maybe translate that into getting a professional writing gig.

What are the cons of writing fan-fic that you've experienced?

Kay Iscah: At it's worst, it's amateur porn, exploiting characters for name recognition.

And that's really the worst part of fanfiction. It's often thoughts without filter, which is one thing for your diary and another when sharing it with other people. Particularly for sexual titillation. My worst experience was being in fan group for a Star Wars character. Another person who seemed normal in forum conversations asked me to read her story, and it was just a graphic description of a gang rape using established characters. And I don't mean the story included a difficult scene. I mean there was no story, just a scene of gang rape with no warning that the content was explicit. I believe I was a minor at the time as well, though the person who sent me the story had no way to know that.

Ed Erdelac: I've personally found that so-called fans aren't particularly supportive of anything that isn't given the licensor's official stamp of approval or that doesn't go for broke and use the exact names of everything. Even then, there are perceived tiers of licensed fiction. All in all, too many amateur gatekeepers. I don't think I'd indulge myself in it again.

Jason Bullock: Conversely speaking to the answer of the previous question, I am limited in the level of changes to the characters beyond the established paradigms put in place by the original author. No permanent body modifications, no personal alteration that would destroy existing cannon, or death of lead characters is allowed when writing fan-fic.Bertram Gibbs: Finding a place to show and share your stories and get feedback to see what you could have done differently or, being a writer, get a modicum of praise because our egos could power a third world country (I know mine is).

Maya Preisler: For me, I’ve noticed it’s easy to become accustomed to the praise and positive feedback to where I feel less secure in my writing when no one is actively cheering me on. I’ve also noticed that the dopamine reward of posting a chapter is much quicker than publishing a short story (not to mention a novel), which makes me more likely to want to write fan-fic than the five original WIPs I have going.

Bobby Nash: I run into way too many people that think they can publish their fan fiction and make money off of it. That’s when fan-fic becomes theft and the publishers/IP owners start cracking down. If you do fan fiction, know that it cannot be sold. You don’t own it.

Danielle Procter Piper: The pitfall was discovering the person mentioned in the first answer. 

Susan Roddey: Readers are brutal. If you get even the smallest details wrong, fanfiction readers will absolutely level you in the most savage way possible. However, I think the biggest con is that there's a belief now that "if you can write fan fiction, you can change the names and call it original," and that's not always true. There has to be a differentiation between your world and theirs. You can't just scrape a few details off the top and pass it as new. There also seems to be a trend of fan-fic "rules of writing" bleeding over into original work. I see a lot of readers and editors complaining about things like point of view (fanfic rules don't widely accept an omniscient narrator in my experience), and many techniques that were used by the older writing generations appear to have been pushed out of popular use.

You'll have to forgive my soapbox moment, but as a con, one of the worst for me is the concept of real-person fic. Fictional worlds and characters don't bother me in the slightest because again...not real. Made up. There for the daydreaming. But I have seen some truly creepy things written about real people that toe the line of questionable. It's a worrying trend to me because it perpetuates the idea that celebrities "belong" to the fans. Maybe it's just me, but it makes me VERY uncomfortable.

How and why do you believe the world of fan fiction is changing? Do you see it becoming more or less acceptable to the reading public?

Jason Bullock: The acceptance of fan fiction is filling the void of mediocrity and overuse of story themes or clichéd elements presented to them in media across the board. With writing strikes involving established media outlets, you and I are always looking for that next great literary concept to share with everyone else in the paradigm of our favorite universes. Fan fiction is becoming accepted even more so in a wide range of target audiences. Children's fables to adult slasher stories, fan-fic is meeting the creative needs of many in today's story desert.

Kay Iscah: I think people are becoming more aware of what fanfiction is, particularly as we connect more with strangers who share our niche interests online. When I started writing fan fiction, I was a kid before the internet and thought I was the only person who did such a crazy thing. My first hope had been becoming a franchise novelist, but for Star Wars, you had to be invited which meant establishing yourself as an author with original work first. I even wrote a letter to Lucasfilm and got a polite rejection and a book mark.

Even some copyright holders have learned to embrace it as a way to keep fan bases engaged between releases. Like at one point Lucasfilm had fan film competitions and Pretty Little Liars experimented with letting people monetize fanfiction through a program with Amazon.

I think it will always be seen as amateur because it is amateur, and that's the fun of it. But a hobbyist knitter may still be excellent at their craft. The campfire storyteller may keep you spellbound. Monetization is not always a mark of quality. High point of my fanfiction career was having a librarian tell me that she like my version of Harry Potter's last year better than Rowling's.

However, I still know I was playing in Rowling's (or Lucas's) world. If I want to be ranked among the great writers, I can't just be a good wordsmith but also be a world builder.

Bobby Nash: As I mentioned before, there are folks out there trying to sell stories with characters they do not own. The publishers and IP owners then crack down and inhibit the fan-fic hobby for everyone.

Maya Preisler: I believe that as preservation of fan-fiction through online archives continues, along with support for legal protections, fan-fiction will become more popular and acceptable to the reading public for a variety of reasons.

First, I think fanfic provides readers with a lot of possibilities that aren’t as feasible in mainstream publishing because it eliminates a lot of barriers. Fan-fic is accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the text can be enlarged or turned into an audiobook with any screen reader, and it can be translated to someone’s native language in-browser. Additionally, fan-fic allows for the extension of comfort media, empowering fans who are craving familiar people and places to enjoy new stories within the safety of their favorite fandom.

Second, fan-fic has also historically been more diverse and inclusive than published media, as it allowed for the creation of works which would have been banned under the Hays Code or simply never considered publishable for containing certain subjects.

Third, fan-fic allows a fandom to evolve and adapt media franchises into something better. Many dedicated fans have already retooled several problematic IPs into alternate versions far better than the original ones ever could have been.

Fourth, the myths and legends which once collectively belonged to humanity are now owned by a handful of media companies and that number is actively growing smaller and smaller. Fanfiction reclaims the collective ownership of these cultural myths and returns them to the hands of the public, empowering us to former deeper personal relationships with them as we imbue them with better representation and deeper meaning.

Susan Roddey: It's absolutely becoming more acceptable, particularly with the awards bestowed on AO3 as a whole. There are absolutely some gems on that site, but there are also some pretty terrible things. I also believe that fanfic as a craft is on the upswing because people have less money these days and it's always (or at least it should be because we get into serious legal issues if it's not) free to read.

John L. Taylor: While I haven't written outright fan-fic, I'll weigh in with this. Works that become part of a culture's heritage are ones that have fan input. Creators like H.P. Lovecraft and George Lucas understood this, and their worlds have flourished for decades after their contemporaries faded. Star Trek had a very similar experience where fan writings of many kinds brought a dead IP back to life. It's weirdly important to a work becoming remembered and passed on to future generations. Mythologies begin that way, and fan stories make the difference between myth and a limited IP. Case in point: the SCP Foundation stories. The entire IP is literally fan fiction based on a random Reddit NoSleep post. Yet it is one of the most vibrant shared universes ever written. Let fan-fic thrive

Bertram Gibbs: I see more fan fiction sites popping up, but I also see what appears as stories that break the traditional characters and the way history has presented them. Some use LGTBQ angles, which while good are not truly showing the characters we love and respect. They are unnecessary twists that do not enhance the story and (I feel) are designed for shock value. Not saying that there isn’t an audience for these stories, but it feels like the focus is not on the heroes or villains or the hearts of the stories, but wish fulfillment of the writers.

I think that fan fiction can be more acceptable if there were more known and publicized sites that invite new and old writers to contribute, giving their spin on known characters, and to develop new, interesting and entertaining stories.

Pulps and Race -- A Writer's Roundtable

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's been way too long since I posted an author roundtable here. So why not jump back in with one that just may get me run out of town on a rail -- pulps and race?

Yep, I went there.

How much content is there in the classic pulps that can actually taint the experience of reading it for contemporary readers who are either discovering or rediscovering it?

Shelby Vick: Thought I'd contribute from the point of view of one who actually lived thru the Age of Pulps.

Born in 1928, I discovered pulps at age seven. I must admit my initial introduction was thru Westerns and science fiction, altho I did get the occasional Doc Savage. I was limited to the reading tastes of my grandfather, and seldom bought any on my own.

It never occurred to me that there was racism in any of the pulps. Yes, there were no black characters - but, at the same time, all the blacks in my young life were in a minor position; maids, cooks, and laborers. I was aware of racism, of course. "Mama, why are there 'white' and 'colored' water fountains and bathrooms?"

"It's for health reasons, dear."

Frankly, that explanation didn't fly for me, even at that age, but I was not a crusader. It was wrong, but that was the way things were. What could a little boy do to change it? So, correct or not, I accepted it. It never entered my mind that pulp stories should be otherwise.

Today, of course, that's different. Tho e who are discovering pulps for the first time...well, how many read it with a cultural slant? They know they are reading something from the distant past; why would they even stop to think about the lack of the presence of blacks in pulp fiction? You can't go back and argue with Max Brand or others about their shortcomings in the cultural department. Whether they are discovering it or rediscovering it, what would set them off?

Mistreating others would, of course, be wrong - but (as I recall) the primary 'mistreating' was by not using them a t all. In movies, it was different; blacks were 'Stepinfetchet' sort of characters, for the most part. THAT was objectionable.

William Patrick Maynard: To my mind very little is genuinely offensive unless one allows political correctness to run rampant.

I'm not actually bothered by minor censorship such as what Ballantine did with Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan books in the 1970s. It was disingenuous to claim the books were "complete and unedited," but the removal of casual racial slurs certainly doesn't hurt the stories and yes, might actually help them. The fact that Burroughs portrayed the Waziri as honorable men is proof enough the man wasn't a true racist, just a product of the thinking of his day. Leaving the slurs in could result in young African-American readers throwing the book down in disgust and never appreciating the fantastic fiction for what it is.

I'm more forgiving in racist and sexist slurs in hard-boiled fiction. It is part of the tough guy patter of the day and one expects it to a degree because everyone comes under fire. No one is good or trustworthy but the knight errant detective. When the worldview is that glum, I'm not bothered by the dismissal of people on the grounds of what would otherwise be baseless slurs.

My concern lies with political correctness. Will the day come that the likes of Hammett, Chandler, and Ross Macdonald will be censored because of the prevailing views of their day toward homosexuals? If we're talking the substitution of a word for a slur or a simple editorial note that the work contains views that are no longer held, I don't object, but the wholesale deletion of passages or the banning of works that are no longer politically correct is what I find unacceptable whether the basis is race, gender, or orientation.

Derrick Ferguson: I think it’s downright ignorant to deny that there is plenty of blatant racism and sexism in Classic Pulp and I’d never suggest that anyone who is coming to Classic Pulp for the first time shouldn’t be mindful of that. But I also think that one has to take into account that these stories were written in a less enlightened time and if you’re going to read Classic Pulp then that has to be taken into account.

Now some people say they can’t get past that and that’s cool. Some people honestly can’t separate like that. But I do have a problem when people suggest that Classic Pulp should not be read at all because of the racism and sexism. Classic Pulp isn’t just escapist literature. It’s also a historical record of the popular entertainment medium of that time period. You can’t ignore an entire genre or try to pretend it doesn’t exist because some of the depictions of race makes you uncomfortable or upset.

Lee Houston Jr.:  At times, not knowing slang terms, a limited knowledge of the past, and the shock of what would be considered racist today. For example: how many people know what a "saw buck" is, look forward to Fibber McGee about to open his closet door, or question why things such as bathrooms and drinking fountains were segregated beyond just the standard gender divisions?

I.A. Watson: For the main part I'm happy to allow that the stories were written in a time with different, more limited understandings of race. Its the same way I can excuse sexist behaviour in medieval and Victorian literature. It's just how it was.

I don't know if you Americans are familiar with the old children's toy, the Gollywog. It's a raggy doll that's supposed to resemble a black man - big white sewn-on eyes, big red stitched lips, frizzy black wool hair, usually with red-and-white striped leggings and maybe buttoned braces and a straw hat. It was based on the old Black-and-White Minstrels image from the stage shows. It was a popular children's toy in the UK up to the 60s - I had a second-hand one as a young boy.

Anyway, the most popular British children's writer of the first half of the 20th century, Enid Blyton, wrote a series of books for very small children about the gnome-like Noddy - and his best friend Golly, a golliwog. Various other toys appeared in the cast too, in the tradition of Winnie-the-Pooh. Noddy and Golly featured in dozens of books, comics, newspaper strips, and eventually as a BBC children's animated TV series.

And then... we all learned that black people shouldn't be depicted as rolling-eyed frizzy-haired stereotypes. Nowadays you'll struggle to find any Noddy book in any library anywhere. I learned to read from Noddy books in my first classroom, but you certainly you won't find him in schools today. Despite generally being the sensible friend who pulled Noddy out of trouble, Golly has become persona non grata, because he was based on a politically incorrect toy.

Now I can see why teachers don't want to expose their young charges to odd old material that requires context the children might not be able to grasp. I strongly object to teachers who vilify Enid Blyton for her "racism" and want her works excised because she was a product of her time.

And that's generally my view of those who want to criticise century-old works for not espousing the current perspective of race, gender, sexuality, geo-politics, or religion.

All that said, from a British point of view we have a different set of race sensitivities to the US ones. We don't have the residual cultural guilt of extinct Native Americans or of Negro slavery (we had slaves, and we sold a lot to America, but we got out of the game early and it never really impacted on us at home). So on the whole we're not as likely to be offended at the N-word or at depictions of black oppression. What we did was conquer or colonise a third of the planet, teaching generations of our citizens that the Chinese, (east) Indian, Asian, and African were in need of our benevolent guidance and rulership. Our literature of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is riddled with stereotype sinister Chinamen, comedy Indians, cruel Asiatic warlords, mad African queens etc., although there's also a generous subset of loyal Sepoy orderlies, dedicated Chinese manservants etc. I'm more likely to cringe at those characters.

From a writers' point of view, let us thank the muses for the Nazis, an Aryan movement of thoroughly unlikeable mass murderers, the last racial subset we can truly despise and happily blow up without feeling the need to show that their culture and viewpoints had merits that must be respected.

Martin Page: A lot of racism in the old Pulps is just background radiation, or economical story telling - like Shakespeare's Shylock. So - being White and European - I am happy to ignore that. Anything vitriolic or packed with Jewish conspiracies can go in the bin, however.

Ed Erdelac: I think if you come at it with a clear sense of the time period it was written in, you can basically get by. But there is a difference to me, between reading something written during a less culturally sensitive or inclusive time, and reading something by a writer who is actively promoting that racist viewpoint. Most white writers of that era would be considered racist by today's standards in thought and word but probably weren't (in the most important sense) by action. There's no question that Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs had racist views, but I can usually look past them. Conversely, I put down the Doc Savage novel Brand Of The Werewolf, and have never picked up a Doc novel since.

Is it better for pulp writers to just ignore the racism of the past and move on, or do we owe it to culture at large to be more intentionally inclusive in new pulp?

William Patrick Maynard: If one is writing in period, one should be honest. Rick Ruby portrays an interracial relationship but it would be disingenuous to suggest it was the norm for the day. Integrity in writing is important. Your characters can disagree with the prevailing views of their era just as Mark Twain did in his time. You don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator just because the era being evoked looks flawed from today's vantage point.

Lee Houston Jr.:  What was common practice back then is thankfully not accepted in these more enlightened times. However, that does not mean we (the public) should try to gloss over the past and ignore it outright. Those beliefs were wrong, and should be acknowledged as mistakes of the past.

Ed Erdelac: I don't think the racism of the past should ever be ignored, no, and I think candy coating it is equally wrong. You can be racially inclusive without sugar coating the past. My Merkabah Rider series features a white Jewish and an Ethiopian Jewish character traveling through the historical old West, and they are often confronted with and themselves confront racism head on. I believe it would do a disservice to the realism of the setting not to.

Derrick Ferguson: We can’t ignore the racism of the past but neither should we shoulder the burden of it. Those writers did their thing back then and writers of New Pulp are doing their thing today. The only thing we owe the culture at large today is to tell the most entertaining stories we possibly can and provide quality reading that won’t waste a reader’s time or money. That’s got to be first before any other consideration. Everything after that is gravy. That’s not to say if a writer intentionally wants to be more racially diverse in his work he can’t be. I mean, my character Dillon I created because the more I read Classic Pulp the more I felt that a black pulp hero was needed as there simply wasn’t one that I could find. And I tried. Couldn’t find one with a search warrant. But at the end of the day I should hope that people who discover Dillon and read his adventures do so first of all because he’s an interesting character who is living an extraordinary life. His being black adds an extra layer to his character, yes. But he’s got a whole lot of interesting layers as well that have nothing to do with his being black.

Martin Page: Regarding moving forward, tell stories realistically. Don't assume a white male default, because that default does not hold in reality. And don't call what you do "Pulp."

Shelby Vick: Well, even at age 84, I'm not a crusader - but I see nothing wrong in treating blacks, or any group, in a more favorable manner. Have blacks and others handled in an even-handed way. At the very least, no put-downs. Yet I don't see that we 'owe' anything. Proper treatment, yes! 'Crusading'? That's up to the individual author. Nothing wrong with a black detective, a black superhero, etc, but remember: 'Entertainment' is a writer's field. So - entertain us!

I.A. Watson: I'm generally against including material that's not in service of the story as a whole. Unless a point of the story is to challenge racist perceptions then I'll omit it just as I will anything else that doesn't help with the things I want to say.

When I'm writing stories set in an era where particular prejudices existed I'll try not to ignore them. I'm happy to include exceptional characters too. I'll include a free-spirited, wayward Maid Marion who flaunts the straight-jacketed conventions that regulated the women of her age; but that's what makes her the heroine of the story. I'll happily depict a black man in the 1920s as being smart, brave, noble, principled - but not as being a top surgeon at a New York hospital. Likewise I'm comfortable with a 1920s black man being a cheat, a liar, a bully, and a sadist - but not because of his race.

One problem we face using non-white characters in some historic settings is that it can be hard for the story to be about anything other than race. If the amateur detective investigating the murder in 1922 New York is black then the story tends to become all about that. With a white character in similar circumstances it wouldn't be about him being white. On the other hand there are many eras and settings where race shouldn't matter, so why not offer cultural diversity? Would John Carter of Mars have been tremendously different if he'd been a black soldier? Would Buck Rogers in the 25th Century have been worse off if he was a half-Arab half-Australian Aborigine?

Do you consider race-based pulp a step in the right direction, or is it just doing with pulps the same thing some comics and comics movies have done, simply replacing characters (or types) with another someone of another color and trying to get people to accept it -- or just buy it because it's now being "marketed" to them as a more colorful version?

Ed Erdelac: I don't think it should make a difference really what the pervasive racial makeup of a book is. Considering so much of the old pulp was very nearly entirely white, why not have black or Asian or Hispanic pulp etc.? I do think the characters should be original. I don't care for 'takes' on established characters no matter what their race. Making a black Batman or an Indian Superman is lazy, and hearkens back to characters like Supergirl and Batgirl. While these characters have since gone on to have identities of their own, it's pretty clear they started as ways to 'get the girls excited about Bat/Superman.'

Derrick Ferguson: Race-based entertainment is nothing new and shouldn’t be treated as such. It grinds my grits to no end when race based entertainment is challenged. You have those who will make the argument that race based entertainment is in itself racist. Which is flat out bullshit. It’s not racist to want to see heroes and heroines of your own ethnic background in your entertainment whether it be books, movies, comics or television. Black cinema has been with us since the 1920’s. Movies made for black movie goers who went to black movie theaters to see them as they couldn’t go to white theaters. Same thing with Asian cinema. And I don’t see a thing wrong with New Pulp marketing to a specific ethnic group. Every other form of entertainment does it so why shouldn’t we? Especially modern day audiences that welcome and look for ethnic diversity in their entertainment.

Shelby Vick: As I said: Entertain us! 'Race-based pulp' is fine, so long as it's entertaining!!!

I.A. Watson: If the hook is "Hey, look, the character's Black/Hispanic/Inuit/Lebanese!" then that seems to me like a short-term strategy. It's like the profusion of female lead characters in the 70s and 80's: "Hey look- she's a woman and she's just as good a detective as if she was a man!" If the story's going to be about the protagonist's race or faith then fine, there's a reason for making the hero Jewish or Muslim or North African or whatever. If the story establishes the character's Black and then just gets on with telling a good story then that's fine too. If the story's there to show that a Chinese man's just as good as a White man then I'm the wrong audience for it.

I'm not an advocate of the school of writing that says only a woman can write a female lead and only a gay man can write good gay characters and so on, but I still cringe at those 1970s comics where White writers tried to attract Black readers by including "street hip" Black characters. Sweet Christmas!

William Patrick Maynard: That depends on the characterization. Race-based pulp that is honest for its setting and depiction is to be lauded. Again, writing with integrity is the key. If you're writing a 1930s era pulp with a minority protagonist, then deal with what that would have meant the same way as if one was writing a crime story set in the rural South in the early 1960s with a black protagonist. Pretending history didn't happen is a mistake. Stories succeed on honesty.

Lee Houston Jr.:  For me personally, what type of person the lead characters are and why I should care whether or not they save the world and survive their current adventure are more important factors than the color of their skin or gender. That is what I also aim for in my writings, getting the readers interested in and caring about the characters.

What else can be done to broaden the racial or interracial appeal of pulp fiction, whether classic or new pulp?

Derrick Ferguson: First of all, tell good stories with good characters. That’s the foundation of pulp fiction right there. People will want to read stories about heroic characters fighting impossible odds to do the right thing and protect the innocent no matter what their ethnic background is.  Give people quality every time and everything else will follow. There are some people who are not going to read New Pulp no matter what and having heroes of color is not going to change their opinion or reading habits. And that’s okay. There’s a whole lot of other readers out there who will pick up a New Pulp book with interracial characters. And let me just say that New Pulp isn’t looking to replace or be superior to Classic Pulp. It’s an extension and an amplification of Classic Pulp. It’s no more and no less that the tropes of a genre updated for the consumption and entertainment of a modern day audience.

William Patrick Maynard: Embracing the diversity of the human race in your stories is a great idea as long as it never appears the writer is simply ticking the box just for the sake of it. Want to add a gay character in the first half of the last century? Great, show the closeted life they were forced to lead. Depict any character at any time who is a minority? Don't shun from the prejudices they faced. For the most part, it appears New Pulp does that just fine. From my perspective, so did Classic Pulp. It honestly reflected the thinking of the day. It may not be pretty, but it was what we were. For all of the offensive stereotypes, there were exceptions like the Jo-Gar stories that stand out. For all of the denigration of racism in writers like Burroughs or Rohmer, there is the undeniable portrayal of minorities as people of intelligence and integrity that was equal or superior to the protagonists in their work. That is the truth of pulp and all fiction.

I.A. Watson: We might look at establishing new settings for some of our historical tales. The Wild West's a great place for stories about Native American heroes, and the Mexican frontier would seem ripe for Hispanic protagonists, but there's lots of times and places beyond that, places where being White would make one the outsider. Is there no value in a pulp approach to the Shogun era, or to enlightened the court of Saladin, or in the troubled fall of the Roman Empire when the balance of power was with Attila's Huns? We've already seen some of this happening. Look at Airship 27's Sinbad series.

In fact the further the stories get from 1930s Chicago the easier diversity gets. A black hero in 1930s Congo has plenty to do. A Chinese hero in 2013 Chicago has plenty to do. Unfortunately, the further we go from the established times and places of popular former pulp, the more work it is for the author to get things right, the harder it is to write "from experience," the tougher the sell to readers who think they want "more of the same."

Lee Houston Jr.:  There are a lot of instances within my own writing where, no matter what else I say about how a character looks or the type of person they are, I never mention their race/skin tone. Granted, I have to be more specific with aliens in my science fiction work like HUGH MONN, PRIVATE DETECTIVE; but by not stating a specific color whenever possible, the reader's imagination has more room to wander, and thus gives my work a little broader appeal.

Ed Erdelac: Authors shouldn't waste time remaking the stories they used to enjoy. Move on. Write the stories that haven't been written yet. I don't subscribe to that every story's been told crap.  Not every combination has been explored or there wouldn't be an entertainment industry of any kind. Very often that includes telling the stories of people who haven't been put in the spotlight before. Look at the popularity of the movie RED TAILS. You can argue that story has already been told, but not in this way, and not with those characters. To broaden the appeal of pulp fiction, open it to the audiences that have traditionally not been represented in its pages. People gravitate towards characters they can see themselves in.

MONSTER EARTH Has Arrived!

Contact: James Palmer
palmerwriter@yahoo.com
www.mechanoidpress.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MONSTER EARTH Has Arrived!

Atlanta, GA—Mechanoid Press, a new New Pulp publisher, is pleased to announce the publication of their first anthology, MONSTER EARTH!

Welcome to a world where the Cold War was fought not with the threat of nuclear destruction, but with Giant Monsters.

Watch as the denizens of this Earth that might have been learn to harness the power of these legendary creatures for good and ill. In these seven tales you'll witness first hand as…

--A young boy learns the value of sacrifice when the Japanese use a giant monster to attack Pearl Harbor…

--An Inuit confronts his heritage to harness a frightening creature of the Great White North…

--A false guru's greed endangers 1960s Boston…

All this and more await you in the pages of MONSTER EARTH!

Join editors James Palmer (Slow Djinn), Jim Beard (Sgt. Janus, Spirit-Breaker) and some of the most talented voices in New Pulp, including Nancy Hansen (Prophecy's Gambit), Edward M. Erdelac (The Merkabah Rider series), and I.A. Watson (Blackthorn: Dynasty of Mars) as they take you on a guided tour of a frightening vision of Earth…

MONSTER EARTH!

Monster Earth is an original giant monster anthology containing almost 75,000 words of monster mayhem.

MONSTER EARTH harkens back to the classic giant monsters of yesteryear like Godzilla, Mothra, Gamera, and King Kong, while focusing on the human element and what it would be like to live in such a world where giant monsters terrorize the Earth.

“There have been a few other giant monster anthologies over the years,” says Palmer. “But our book is going to be a bit different. It has a unifying concept, as well as a solid pulp style of storytelling.”

Developed by MONSTER EARTH co-editor Jim Beard (writer, Captain Action and the Riddle of the Glowing Men), each story in the book takes place in a different decade of the 20th century, which leads to a Cold War fought with giant monsters rather than the threat of nuclear weapons.

“I really wanted all the stories to have an underlying thread that weaves between all the stories, and Jim really came up with a winner.”

The stories in MONSTER EARTH have a strong human angle as well.

“Focusing in on the human beings living in this world is important to me,” says Palmer. “The monsters are like forces of nature, with the humans trying to control them. But don’t worry, these aren’t just regular human interest stories with a monster thrown in for window dressing. There are plenty of great monster battles and more than enough citywide destruction to please the most discerning kaiju fan – and anyone who loves a good tale.

The book sports an awesome cover by Eric Johns inspired by the American release of the Godzilla film Destroy All Monsters.

MONSTER EARTH is available in print via Createspace and Amazon. It is also available as an e-book from Kindle and Smashwords.

About Mechanoid Press:
Mechanoid Press is a new imprint specializing in science fiction, New Pulp, and steampunk ebooks and anthologies. For more, visit www.mechanoidpress.com or follow the robot revolution on Twitter. You can also like Mechanoid Press on Facebook.

THIS MONSTER EARTH!

New Pulp Publisher, Mechanoid Press has announced that the new anthology, Monster Earth is now available on Kindle with other ebooks and a print version coming soon.

PRESS RELEASE:

Welcome to a world where the Cold War was fought not with the threat of nuclear destruction, but with Giant Monsters.

Watch as the denizens of this Earth that might have been learn to harness the power of these legendary creatures for good and ill. In these seven tales you'll witness first hand as…

--A young boy learns the value of sacrifice when the Japanese use a giant monster to attack Pearl Harbor…

--An Inuit confronts his heritage to harness a frightening creature of the Great White North…

--A false guru's greed endangers 1960s Boston…

All this and more await you in the pages of MONSTER EARTH!

Join editors James Palmer (Slow Djinn), Jim Beard (Sgt. Janus, Spirit-Breaker) and some of the most talented voices in New Pulp, including Nancy Hansen (Prophecy's Gambit), Edward M. Erdelac (The Merkabah Rider series), and I.A. Watson (Blackthorn: Dynasty of Mars) as they take you to frightening vision of Earth…

MONSTER EARTH!

Monster Earth is an original giant monster anthology containing almost 75,000 words of monster mayhem.

You can find Monster Earth on Kindle here.

About Monster Earth:
MONSTER EARTH harkens back to the classic giant monsters of yesteryear like Godzilla, Mothra, Gamera, and King Kong, while focusing on the human element and what it would be like to live in such a world where giant monsters terrorize the Earth.

“There have been a few other giant monster anthologies over the years,” says Palmer. “But our book is going to be a bit different. It has a unifying concept, as well as a solid pulp style of storytelling.”

Developed by MONSTER EARTH co-editor Jim Beard (writer, Captain Action and the Riddle of the Glowing Men), each story in the book takes place in a different decade of the 20th century, which leads to a Cold War fought with giant monsters rather than the threat of nuclear weapons.

“I really wanted all the stories to have an underlying thread that weaves between them all the stories, and Jim really came up with a winner.”

The stories in MONSTER EARTH have a strong human angle as well.

“Focusing in on the human beings living in this world is important to me,” says Palmer. “The monsters are like forces of nature, with the humans trying to control them. But don’t worry, these aren’t just regular human interest stories with a monster thrown in for window dressing. There are plenty of great monster battles and more than enough citywide destruction to please the most discerning kaiju fan – and anyone who loves a good tale.

About Mechanoid Press:
Mechanoid Press is a new imprint specializing in science fiction, New Pulp, and steampunk ebooks and anthologies. For more, visit www.mechanoidpress.com or follow the robot revolution on Twitter. You can also like Mechanoid Press on Facebook.

Monster Earth Coming Soon!

Contact: James Palmer
palmerwriter@yahoo.com
http://www.mechanoidpress.com/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monster Earth Coming Soon!

Atlanta, GA—James Palmer, editor and publisher of Mechanoid Press, an independent publishing imprint specializing in New Pulp, science fiction, and more, is proud to announce the upcoming release of its first anthology MONSTER EARTH.

MONSTER EARTH harkens back to the classic giant monsters of yesteryear like Godzilla, Mothra, Gamera, and King Kong, while focusing on the human element and what it would be like to live in such a world where giant monsters terrorize the Earth.

"There have been a few other giant monster anthologies over the years," says Palmer. "But our book is going to be a bit different. It has a unifying concept, as well as a solid pulp style of storytelling."

Developed by MONSTER EARTH co-editor Jim Beard (writer, Captain Action and the Riddle of the Glowing Men), each story in the book takes place in a different decade of the 20th century, which leads to a Cold War fought with giant monsters rather than the threat of nuclear weapons.

"I really wanted all the stories to have an underlying thread that weaves between them all the stories, and Jim really came up with a winner."

The stories in MONSTER EARTH have a strong human angle as well.

"Focusing in on the human beings living in this world is important to me," says Palmer. "The monsters are like forces of nature, with the humans trying to control them. But don’t worry, these aren't just regular human interest stories with a monster thrown in for window dressing. There are plenty of great monster battles and more than enough citywide destruction to please the most discerning kaiju fan – and anyone who loves a good tale.

Palmer and Beard have assembled a great line-up of New Pulp all-stars to give us their visions of a world ruled by giant monsters. MONSTER EARTH will include stories by I.A. Watson (Sherlock Holmes, Blackthorn: Dynasty of Mars), Ed Erdelac (The Merkabah Rider), Nancy Hansen, and newcomer Jeff McGinnis. Beard and Palmer will also provide stories, and there will be a free online bonus tale by Jeff McGinnis coming out shortly before the book's release.

MONSTER EARTH is slated for a Christmas release, and will be available in print and ebook formats.

For more information and updates, including a preview of the cover and table of contents when they are finalized, go to http://www.mechanoidpress.com/ and sign up for our FREE newsletter.
 #

About Mechanoid Press

Mechanoid Press is a new imprint specializing in science fiction, New Pulp, and steampunk ebooks and anthologies. For more, visit http://www.mechanoidpress.com/ or follow the robot revolution on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mechanoidpress. You can also like Mechanoid Press on Facebook.

Why Do You Write... Pulp?

Just one question this week, folks. And it's for the pulpsters.

Why do you write pulp?

Bill Craig: I write Pulp because it is FUN!  I enjoy writing the kind of rip-roaring adventures that I loved reading as a kid.  Many of those books and series aren't around any more and I feel the younger generation is missing out, so I write to give them a chance to experience that same since of  wonder I did as a young reader!

Greg Glick: Because the pulp world is more exciting, wondrous and just plain cooler than the one we've got.

Nancy Hansen: I write pulp because I've always been kind of a maverick, and I like the gritty sound of the word—pulp. I tell people what I write with pride, because the way we do things here in the New Pulp world, without all the big budgets and fancy high rise offices, tends to amaze most of them. There's something sort of clandestinely idealistic and awe inspiring in that—it's like being part of an elite sleeper cell of underground commando wordsmiths. I find I really prefer the quicker pacing and high action and heroics of pulp stories, and yet I still get to tell the kinds of tales I've always loved to read. I've always tried to write stories that I feel good about, and I figured I'm not the only one that enjoys those sorts of yarns. In the New Pulp world, I can get my work into the hands of readers much faster than trying to jump through all the mainstream hoops. It just works well for me.

Lee Houston Jr.: In all honesty, the action, the adventure, the mystery, the intrigue. Good versus evil. Right triumphant over wrong. Pulp has it all, regardless of what genres or labels you care to use in any attempt to define it further. What more can one ask from great literature?

Van Allen Plexico: I write pulp because I already had my own style of writing science fiction, fantasy, and superhero prose adventure, which didn't seem to match up with the style favored by contemporary mainstream editors and publishers.  But I liked it and so did my readers, and I wasn't going to change.  One day I discovered that my style already existed and was called pulp. So I didn't choose pulp -- pulp chose me! 

Bobby Nash: I didn't set out to write pulp specifically. I write the type of stories that I like to read. Turns out that those types of stories with action, adventure, and snappy dialogue were called pulp. Pulp isn't a genre, it's an attitude. And I guess I have it.

Ron Fortier: There was never a purposeful intention.  I write what I like to read, action and adventure.  Guess those are synonymous with pulp.

Robert Kennedy: I have a lifelong love of action filled adventure stories. Sure I like some genre more that others, but a good story is a good story. I write what some call pulp, or New Pulp, because that's where the action and excitement are. For the writer. And hopefully the reader.

Jim Beard: It was my dad that really instilled in me my love for pulp -- he was a big fan of The Shadow, Green Hornet, Lone Ranger, the Phantom...though he seemed to not know about Doc Savage. I glommed onto Doc by way of Will Murray and the character swiftly rose to the top of my Pulp hierarchy of favorites. I thank goodness my dad sat me down to watch and to listen so much of what I love today. Without him I wouldn't be the pulp/comic book/television/films nutjob I am today.

Ed Erdelac: I was having pulp daydreams when I was six years old, flipping through comic books and imagining what the word balloons said. I would watch ads for movies on TV and make up the entire story at home with GI Joe figures, stoking the fire with George Pal sci fi movies, The Lone Ranger, The Cisco Kid, and Errol Flynn swashbucklers every Sunday. I came to pulp through movies and comics, specifically Conan The Barbarian and the 80's revival of The Shadow that Howard Chaykin did for DC. You write what you know, I guess. I LOVE that writing can become a learning experience as well. I read all about dhows and early Muslim world politics for my Sinbad story, and I can't even list the things I've learned researching my other work. Maybe I should amend that comment to say 'write what you know you love.'

Pulp with Pictures

The illustrated pulp magazine was a mainstay and the standard for its time. There's little doubt about that. But what about the pulp reprint books and the new pulp volumes that are coming out and growing in popularity... Do they also benefit from the old-fashioned pulp experience of being illustrated stories? Or has that day passed, and with the reigning standard being that of the purely textual novel, are pictures no longer needed for stories for adult readers?

Well, you know us here at Bad Girls, Good Guys, and Two-Fisted Action... when we have a question or two burning in our craniums, we scope out the usual suspects and ask 'em. 

Which do you prefer as a reader -- illustrated pulp stories or those without illustrations?

Art by The Savage Scribe

John F. Allen: As a reader, I find myself drawn to pulp stories without illustrations. This is not to say that I don’t like illustrated pulp stories however, I think that when I’m reading a pulp story I want to let my own imagination guide me in determining the way the characters look, the way the scenes look and the overall feel of the story. I feel that there are some advantages to having illustrations accompany a pulp novel or collection.

Bill Cunningham: Sometimes the illustrations add to the story, but often I find they conflict with my own mental image of the characters. On the other hand not having illustration leaves room for more story...

M.D. Jackson: For me the illustrations are part of the magic of the whole pulp experience. When I collect old original pulp magazines they have to be illustrated. It doesn't even matter if the illustration is any good, just being illustrated is part of its charm. I love the whole experience of the old pulp magazines and the illustrations are, for me about 50 percent of the equation.

Lee Houston, Jr.: In all honesty, I think it depends upon the genre. I can see having art in almost everything except science-fiction. That would the one genre where I would prefer to have the images left to my imagination.

Ed Erdelac: This may go back to when I was a kid and couldn't read. I would conjure stories around the illustrations. I really enjoy the plates in the old pulps - even the later collections with Frazetta art. They're a surprise to look forward to as you read along.

What are the advantages of having illustrations in a pulp novel or collection?

Art Basil Wolverton

John F. Allen: One of the advantages is to give the reader a fantastic piece of artwork to go along with the story, capture a scene from the story and impart it into the reader’s mind. Another advantage is that it allows for the reader to get a glimpse into the intent of the author as captured by the illustrator. That is provided that the illustrator has indeed captured the vision of the writer.

M.D. Jackson: As an illustrator myself I am naturally biased in that direction. Illustrating is what I do, it's how I ply my trade and when I was publishing Dark Worlds Magazine illustrations were a key part of the whole package. Having illustrations, particularly ones done in the traditional "pulp" style helped to identify us with the pulp magazines. One look at a printed edition ad there was no doubt about what you were going to get.

Lee Houston, Jr.: You certainly have an idea of what is going on and what the characters look like. This definitely works best for me in swashbuckling tales and mysteries, so you can keep better track of the suspects and situations and ponder along with the detective on duty to figure out just who did what and how, let alone why.

Ed Erdelac: I still like the illustrated versions, especially the reprints of The Shadow complete with ads. It recreates the whole experience, I think.


What are the advantages of not having art inside the pulp novel or collection?

Art by Virbil Finlay

John F. Allen: I do think that there are also some advantages to omitting illustrations in pulp fiction pieces as well. One advantage is that without illustrations, the reader is allowed to rely solely on their own imaginations to make interpretations on the look and feel of characters, setting, and scene as laid out by the author. It also gives the reader an impartiality to an illustration that they might find distracting or just plain ugly. Lastly, it would avoid there being any kind of disconnection between the author’s vision and/or intent and the illustration as interpreted by the illustrator.

M.D. Jackson: The main disadvantage was reproducing that experience in electronic editions. Formatting an illustrated publication for Kindle or other e-reader add s an extra level of pain and suffering to what is already a major annoyance. Some of our electronic editions had to eliminate the illustrations completely. While it is true that if a story is good it should be able to stand on its own, when I am craving the pulp experience, I want the story to be enhanced by those illustrations.

Lee Houston, Jr.: Sometimes the artist interpretations don't match your imagination, which is why I prefer fewer in science fiction. But with all that said, if illustrations originally accompanied a tale, I prefer to have them reprinted with the story to get the full feel of both the tale and the period it was originally produced in. The difference is noticeable when comparing such things like the Shadow paperback reprints of the 1970s to the Nostalgia Ventures' reprints of today.

Ed Erdelac: Well, when you read you picture the characters and situations in your mind. You take the words the author uses as a jumping off point, extrapolating their appearance from your own unique experiences and perspectives. That's why the movie is almost never as good as the book to most people. A filmmaker can never make the movie that's in everyone's mind's eye. So when you include illustrations in a book there's a chance of not gelling with the reader's concept of your story. Less than stellar art can be a turn off too.

===================================================================

For more information: John F. Allen | Ed Erdelac | Lee Houston, Jr. | M.D. Jackson | Bill Cunningham

Everything Old is New Again... Too New

It's a common start to a flame war online. Someone's favorite character, usually from an older work, is getting a new lease on life for modern readers. Great! Right? Only, it turns out not so great. Someone's favorite character isn't quite the same anymore.

He may have a new female sidekick. His ethic about killing may have changed. He began during Kuwait instead of WWII. Or the costume doesn't have the underwear on the outside anymore.

Whatever the reason, the old fans aren't happy.

But the studio/publisher doesn't seem to care. They have to, after all, "re-imagine" the character for today's audience of readers/movie-goers.

So this week, we're going to look at that process with the help of several writers who regularly have to make those choices as they bring commonly known characters to life in their tales of action and adventure.

Let's start off positive. When is tinkering with a character for the benefit of reaching a new audience a good thing?

Ron Fortier: When the character has been all but forgotten by everybody, including the old fans.  Then it's time to try some re-imagining.  But as long as there remains a viable, dedicated and loyal following of the character, one should take their feeling into consideration and then tone down any revisions.

Dan Jolley: I ran into this when I was working on the comic book re-launch of Voltron for Devil's Due Productions. I watched Voltron nigh-religiously as a kid and loved everything about it, but when it came time to do the comic book series, DDP sent me all of the old Voltron episodes, and I quickly discovered that they, to put it kindly, didn't quite hold up. Part of it was that I was watching them with the sensibilities of an adult, but perhaps a bigger part was that my memories of the show candy-coated it and glossed over its many, many, many flaws. I knew that if the comic was going to work, I'd have to make some changes to the property, some merely cosmetic, some right down to the premise. Because if I had simply translated the existing show to comic format, whether adapting the original stories or setting new stories in the same framework, the critical and commercial reception would have ranged from simply "negative" to "brutal." (The tutu-clad dancing mice in particular had to go.)

Ed Erdelac: When the character has fallen into obscurity to the degree that they're adventures are no longer available or are out of print. I can't count the number of times I've been delighted to hear of even the lamest of remakes because I know some profit-minded suit is gonna re-release the orignal material to try and cash in. I'm mercenary in that regard, but somebody will always do it. It's embarrassing to admit, but when Robert Blake went on trial I was ecstatic to pick up the first season of Baretta on DVD.

Bill Cunningham: I think one only needs to look at the recent X-Men: First Class and The Dark Knight movies to see how reinvention can invigorate a character or series. In both instances the writers took a look at what worked before, what works for today's audiences and found a way to make it work. Specifically, in X-Men the writers took the latter day Magneto/Xavier relationship and posited it from the start, creating a deeper emotional resonance to the onscreen action. In addition, they took the premise of the first X-Men comic (Magneto steals missiles from the army base) and re-imagined it in light of both history (the Cuban Missile Crisis) and visual impact (Magneto is fired upon from multiple warships and must stop the missiles mid-air).

Selah Janel: When it’s done out of respect and love it’s fine. Batman The Animated Series kept a lot of the themes that people loved about Batman and adapted them to work for an after-school audience. It gave Gotham a fantastic new look and turned many of the once-comedic villains into sympathetic and frightening characters. Plus for a cartoon it balanced out Bruce’s pain and burden very well. It worked because everyone working on it obviously cared about the details and the story.


Lee Houston Jr.: One thing you have to remember is that the need for revising, even just to stay "contemporary," is because most publishers never foresaw the markets lasting as long as they have, especially within the comic book industry. They originally thought there would be a change over every 10-15 years as one generation of audience was replaced by another. But the fans did remember and care. More important, they were also keeping an eye upon continuity, something the publishers and creators weren't because of the generation changeover theory.

Another thing that does not help is the passage of time. A lot of the adventures written in the past were contemporary when originally created, but are considered period pieces today.

When does it cross a line and become something, in a fan's eyes, worthy of derision?

Ron Fortier: Easy. When you stop respecting the core essence of the character.  The Green Hornet and Lone Ranger as original envisioned were serious heroes with a specific moral code.  No matter how you shape their adventures to suit new audiences, the core essence can never change.  Doing that basically changes the character to an entirely different character.  That being the case, why not invent your own?

Dan Jolley: I would say it crosses the line when the re-launch shows no respect for the original property. There are right ways and wrong ways to re-launch something, and I got caught up in the wrong way when DC asked me to write the new Firestorm book back in 2004 or so. After seeing the massive fan backlash regarding Green Lantern, I first wrote a pitch that treated the original Firestorm, Ronnie Raymond, with a great amount of respect and basically gave him a hero's send-off as the title transitioned to its new protagonist, Jason Rusch. That pitch was summarily rejected by DC brass. Part of it was that DC felt they had done everything they could possibly do with Ronnie Raymond at the time; in their eyes, he was a bankrupt character, and they just wanted to cut ties with him as fast as possible and move on. Another part of it was that DC decided Ronnie Raymond didn't have enough of a fan base to maintain the necessary amount of sales on a book, so he wasn't a viable option for the lead role no matter what we did with him. At the time, I was just thrilled to get a monthly book, and though I voiced my concerns, when they were flatly overruled I basically decided to get with the program and do what DC wanted me to do. I don't think my run on the book did the title any favors, honestly.

Ed Erdelac: When some integral component to the character's original appeal is compromised or abandoned entirely. Imagine Batman as an overweight woman with a machinegun or something (because hey, it'll reach a wider range of demographics!).

Bill Cunningham: When the new story or reimagined character doesn't make me care, doesn't involve me in the story, and simply spoonfeeds me spectacle over substance.

Selah Janel: What ticks me off is when reboots are obviously done for money. I mean I grew up in the eighties where everything was marketing – do people think we’re not going to figure it out? I’m tired of seeing everything that was special to me as a kid turned into a marketing machine that has no effort behind it. Those movies take the lowest common denominator from the source material and turn it into something that’s almost unrecognizable. It’s just arrogant. Lost Boys: The Tribe forced onto fans what it thought they should want. The director didn’t even like the original movie! No effort was made to try to make a real sequel – most of the jokes and conflicts were recycled wholesale but sexed up and modernized with the assumption that no one could tell the difference. And we could all tell. Overall it’s a title that for the most part isn’t worth mentioning.

Lee Houston Jr.: Sure, you might need to start a series over from the origin point to explain who the hero is and why they do the things they do. For example, the original might have been a World War 2 veteran and the modern version might now have seen action in the Middle East. No problem there. But if the character was a decorated soldier in the past and is a buffoon lucky enough not to shoot his own foot today...

Why is it such a big deal? Shouldn't fans be happy simply that their favorites are being published again or are being brought to TV or to the big screens?


Ron Fortier: We all grow up with fictional heroes of one type or another, which do shape our lives and our world views. They do teach us about moral, doing the right things, being honorable, fair etc.etc.  Heroes show us the right path to follow.  When insensitive producers come along eager to make a fast buck by sensationalizing our heroes and altering them purposely for those gains, its pretty much attacking everything we grew up believing in.  Cynical, Hollywood types have no moral compass as to how to be a hero.  Their concern is only box office take and ratings and if the world is a darker, less decent place when they've torn down our heroes, they don't care.  As Luke Skywalker said rather simply, "I care."

Dan Jolley: The inherent difficulty here -- some might say inherent impossibility -- is that fans THINK they want the same things they got when they were younger. As I mentioned before, most of the time our memories gloss over the faults of properties we loved. That's just a thing human brains do. It's very, very rare that something we loved as children, for instance, is as good as we remember; in fact, a work of fiction, no matter what medium, has to be basically perfect in order to give you the same experience both the first time you're exposed to it and then when you see it again 20 or 30 years later. (Casablanca comes to mind as an exception to the rule. That movie is damn near flawless.) So, essentially, somebody who used to think Knight Rider was the greatest show on television stands a good chance of being impossible to satisfy with a new version, because the Knight Rider in his head is this idealized, fault-free version of the show that never actually existed. Maybe you can do a re-launch that captures the spirit of the original and is really spectacularly good and makes some people happy, but no matter how good your effort, there will be a group of fans out there who think what you're doing is shit compared with the original.

Ed Erdelac: I'm gonna use an example here that I know a lot of people are not gonna agree with. I hate the Lord of The Rings movies. Loathe them. But I've always been enamored with the books. The feel of them, the whimsicality, the depth of the world and the emotional scope of the adventure are inimitable.

To me, the movies are like reading Cliff Notes. They're too fast, too loud, and packed with insipid dwarf jokes that take you right out of the world (Okay, not entirely like Cliff Notes).

I was as excited about The Lord of The Rings movies as anybody. To me, they were going to be the new Star Wars. They had a director I respected (at the time), an amazing cast, and from the sneak peek photos, a great sense of the visual appeal of that world. The Fellowship Of The Ring was the most disappointing experience I've ever had at a movie theater, bar none. I went away cussing. I hated it. I never even bothered with the second one (I recently tried to give it another shot, tuned in on TV in time to see Legolas surfing down a staircase on a shield shooting arrows and promptly turned it off), and I got dragged to the third one (which mellowed my dislike somewhat, but still had a lot of plain stupidity in it).

Now, the greatest crime to me wasn't that I'd wasted the price of the ticket, but that for all millions of kids who had never read Tolkien, the film series would be their first experience with it. It would lead them to the books, which was a good thing, yes, but the movies do not accurately convey the books. The pacing is all wrong. LOTR the movies are a nachos and cheese popcorn fueled D&D session full of Jon Woo style battles, wisecracking, kick-ass women and sweeping crane shots. LOTR the books are an epic, serious meditation on the change of war punctuated by moments of whimsy and slow heartbreak.

Now back when I said all this originally, I was written off as a purist who wanted to see Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights. It wasn't that. It was the books, man! I personally witnessed people who never attempted to read anything the sheer scope of LOTR in their lives pick up Fellowship Of The Ring and put it down after only a few chapters, because for them, it was a bait and switch. The movies were not indicative of the writing or the characters or the world. No frat boy hobbits, no blubbering oafish dwarves, no black riders catching torches in their teeth. For them, it was a misrepresentation.

And that's the danger of 'reimagining' -- you misrepresent the original property and a lot of people who seek it out based on the new product are dissatisfied, and the rekindling flares out. Now I know this didn't happen with Lord Of The Rings, that I'm in the minority. I accept that. But what about The Green Hornet, or a limitless number of other characters who were not translated faithfully?

Bill Cunningham: It's a big deal because fans are voting with their money. They want to see you fulfill the promise that you are going to tell them a great story, and lead them to a place in their imagination that's worthwhile.

Selah Janel: It matters because usually it’s something that a fan/consumer associates with a part of their life that meant a great deal to them. Fandoms aren’t just things people like – usually there’s some sort of personal connection and meaning. And it’s just really arrogant to assume that you know better than other people or can “fix” a universe or something. Again – this usually comes from things being done for money and focusing on the lowest common denominator. When it’s done well it’s not usually much of an issue.

Lee Houston Jr.: Readers and viewers not only want to see their favorites continue, but want them to continue the way they remember, for that not only keeps the character "fresh", but vicariously helps the audience hold on to a piece of their youth too.

What role does the writer have in trying to find balance for both new and old audiences?

Ron Fortier: The writer has the important task of writing something that is true to the characters' essence, respects the old fan base and at the same time put a fresh spin that does contradict those elements and attracts a new audience of fans.  It is no easy job, but again, dealing with respect and love for these classic characters is pretty much trying to be that hero yourself.  Difficult, but when done right, so richly rewarding.

Dan Jolley: The most important part of the process for the writer, I would have to say, would be to identify the true spirit of the show, or the books, or the comics that you're re-launching. If you can pinpoint what the original work was really about, and then reproduce that in a new/modified/tweaked/overhauled format, that's probably your best chance of pleasing some of the original fanbase and finding success with new viewers/readers. I'd say J.J. Abrams is pretty good at that, since a lot of people liked his new Star Trek movie, which comes equipped with one of the planet's most dedicated fanbases. That being said, and at the risk of dating this article, I will guaran-freaking-tee you that when Tim Burton's new version of Dark Shadows comes out, there will be a group of die-hard original series fans out there who think it's utter garbage.

Ed Erdelac: The writer is the interpreter, trying to broker peace between two warring factions. He's the guy that offers the compromise that will either spare the land (the character) or destroy it. He has to reward the loyalty of the lifetime fans (because if he doesn't, he risks their ire, which could result in extremely negative word of mouth) and yet try to provide enough crossover appeal to bring in new consumers for the suits. It's a delicate balance and it doesn't often work.

Bill Cunningham: The writer must first understand that he has a responsibility to understand the core concept of the character he is seeking to update. By misunderstanding or neglecting the core concept, the character will not make sense, period. The writer must seek to care about his characters and make them whole people who have a valid reason (within the context of the story) for doing what they do. That is the engine that drives their character to do the things they do.

The writer must also understand context. How does a character from the 1930's work for today's audience without sacrificing the engine that makes the character unique and whole. For example, the recent Green Hornet movie neglected the entire engine of the character in service to the jokes.

Selah Janel: The writer has a huge job trying to bridge the gap between old and new. They have to give an audience some aspect of a series or character they haven’t seen but keep enough of what’s loved of the original in or else the story/universe becomes something else. I could see where that would mean keeping in stuff they may not care for personally if it’s in the best interest of the universe/series. In a sense you’re trying to remodel someone’s home. You’re in a place you didn’t build and you want to make it work better or give it an updated/sleeker look – but you can’t totally start from scratch because it’s not your house. You aren’t the one that ultimately is going to be living there.

Lee Houston Jr.: The most important thing when writing or revising an established character is to remember what made that character special and unique to begin with, and not treat the property as either a potential cash cow or fodder for a comedic romp.

=======================================================================

To follow the works of these fine creators who took part in this roundtable, simply look for their links on the list of Heavy Hitters on the right side of this page.