Art vs. Money: Writers Sound Off

It's time once again for the weekly roundtable discussion for the blog. Up this week: Writing for art vs. writing to sell. Art vs. Commerce. Creativity for creation's sake or creativity for the sake of making a living wage.

Have both sides been incited enough yet by that lead-in? Good. Let the discussion commence.

Is there a difference between writing for art and writing to sell? What is it (or what are they)?

Richard Lee Byers: I supposed that writing purely for art would mean that the writer was creating purely for his own enjoyment or to express a personal vision and was sublimely indifferent to the possibility of making any money off his work. Whereas writing purely to sell would mean that the writer only cared about money and was indifferent to self-expression and the possibility of creating something of real quality or lasting value.

Fan fiction writers and certain bloggers may represent that first hypothetical type of writer. But I have seldom if ever met a professional or aspiring professional fiction writer who could be fairly characterized as a pure example of the second. Even if we care a lot about the commercial potential of our work, we still take pride in our craftsmanship, and we still tell stories that interest us and allow us to on some level express things that matter to us. If we weren’t going to do that, we probably wouldn’t have gone into the profession in the first place.

Terri Smiles: I consider books written with the primary purpose of making money to contain less commentary on society or what it is to be human. That is not to say that books that include such "deeper" themes can't become commercial successes, but rather that the author had points to make or at least questions for the readers to think about, in addition to a romping story.

Marian Allan: There isn't NECESSARILY a difference. Shakespeare wrote for the market, after all. Writing for art is putting your heart and mind into it; writing to sell is hoping for the best.

Frank Fradella: There are, in my mind, three stages in being a writer. There's the hobbyist, who likes to write, who gets pleasing feedback from friends and family and who's entire "career" may never progress past Live Journal and an entry in a Poetry.com anthology. These are people who often say, "You know, I had an idea for a novel..." and never actually write it. If you are very, very lucky, this is the stage where Harlan Ellison slaps you across the face and tells you to go be a plumber instead AND YOU GO BE A PLUMBER INSTEAD.

Past that, there's the craft. This is where the words come out of you intentionally, with deliberation. Where the countless hours spent reading better writers is starting to rub off on you and you realize there's an honest-to-goodness craft at work here; that nothing happens by accident. This is the stage where you study and understand structure and character and motivation and develop your own style. You write, and you write a lot. Not all of it is very good. Much of it stinks. You greet the praise of friends and family with skepticism. It's nice, but you'd rather get that reaction from a respected peer.

Finally, the craft turns a corner and becomes a profession. You write stories that matter to you, but you write them in such a way that resonate with other people. You learn how to pitch and write queries and you get paying work that puts food on the table and gas in the tank. You now spend more time marketing your work than you do writing it. (This, in my mind, is where we separate the talented amateur from the true professional.)

Iscah: You may be a little more free to experiment with writing for arts sake and writing for sales sake. But writing to sell is also writing to communicate, to share a story, and there's a high degree of art to doing that well. Being intelligible doesn't make you less of an artist. You don't have to push the boundaries of them medium to write a good book, though there are certainly times you can do both.

Percival Constantine: I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If you write a book or a story, why wouldn't you want to be compensated for your hard work? The way I would differentiate it is forcing yourself to write in a genre you don't like just because it's popular. As an example, I'm not a fan of erotica, so if I wrote in erotica just to make a quick buck, I think that would be a betrayal of the art side of things.

Corrina Lawson: In the initial stages, no, because the only guarantee you have when you write is to amuse/enjoy yourself. After a draft, it may needed to be tweaked or altered a bit for the market.

Lance Stahlberg: I confess I'm having trouble understanding the question. How can there be a distinction? So I guess the answer is "No." Not in my mind.

"Writing for Art" without any desire to sell is still writing.

"Writing to sell" cannot be done without also paying attention to the art or the craft. If you don't legitimately enjoy what you are writing, if you don't take care to enough to craft a well told story or put your own artistic voice into the work, you will not engage readers, and thus won't sell.

Even when you look at the most infamous example of godawful writing that sold a gazillion copies and got a movie deal in the mommy porn market, that started as &q uot;art" in the writer's mind. By all accounts, it was written as fanfiction, purely for enjoyment. It was the publisher who made it into a blockbuster through crazy marketing tactics. Trying to replicate that with the intent of becoming a commercial success is a stupid way to try to hit the lottery.

Lee Houston Jr.: Your questions are certainly intriguing, but I honestly don't know if I can answer them individually. So just give me a moment to hop up on my soap box and I'll tell you how I feel about writing. I write because I love to create. I have been an avid reader as far back as I can remember, and that (in part) has inspired me to tell my own tales.

Whether or not I'm successful is hard to say. People do read my work and (hopefully) want more.

I'm certainly not getting rich writing, and if that was my only goal, I may have given up a long time ago. I do want to reach a point where I can financially support myself writing, but I'm referring more to maintaining the basics of life like keeping a roof over my head and the bills paid than any desire for exotic vacations or a fancy house. Yet when it comes to writing, I'm doing what I love and love what I'm doing. So from that perspective, then I am definitely successful.

Jack Wallen: I think there is – very much. Why? Those that write to sell write what sells and that can become very calculated. Those that write for art, write to honor the craft and the word. That is not to say one cannot write what sells while still honoring your art, but most often writing to sell can quickly lead to selling out your art. It’s the same thing we see in the music industry (over and over again). Band write music that comes from their soul until they get a taste of success. At that point the temptation is very great to write for the audience with the most influence over the industry. How many times do you hear an author say something like “I could write romance, but...”. We do that because we know romance sells. I don’t do that because I don’t want to take time away from what I love – horror.

Why do writers tend to divide into camps and support one over the other? Aren't both needed?

Terri Smiles: I don't know why writer's divide themselves. I want people to read. ALL readers are good readers, no matter what their preference - and they writers to produce what they want to read.

Marian Allan: People are bilaterally symmetrical, aren't we? We love to divide things into this or that, these or those, yin and yang. So writers divide into pantsers and plotters, literary and commercial, artists and craftsmen. With writing, what you do and how you do it is actually somewhere on a continuum, and you might shift position depending on the project. Why do we choose up sides? Because it gives us something to argue about over beer.

Shelby Vick: Part of the problem here is, I feel, deciding the difference between writing for art and writing for money. The latter, I feel, is a goal most writers appreciate; who doesn't like money?  But the former suggests that 'creating' and 'style' would be the main objective. Or is that a description of the art of writing? Whatever it may be, I feel most writers write because they have the drive to do so. I have written since I learned to put a pencil to paper and form words. Many of the writers I know are the same, and have a compulsion to write. Some train that compulsion so they can actually sell what they write.

Jack Wallen: I think this is simple – writers that write to sell have decided it’s the only way to see their “brand” as a business. I am a full-time, stay at home writer. I do not treat this as a business. This is an art that happens to make me a living. From my perspective, the second I dishonor my craft and turn it into nothing more than a product to consumer I remote the art from the results. That would spell doom for my words and worlds.

I often wonder what my idol, Clive Barker, would have become had he treated his written words as a commodity. I can’t imagine the likes of Imajica would ever have been penned. That would be a travesty.

Richard Lee Byers: Personally, I’m not acquainted with many writers who intrinsically support one over the other since, as my previous answer implied, most working writers see this as kind of a false dichotomy to begin with.

Sometimes writers succumb to the temptation to take public potshots at others who are far more successful even though, in the detractor’s view, their work is not very good. But this happens because envy is the spiritual malady to which writers are most prone. That same critic will almost invariably hold other highly commercial writers in high esteem.

Iscah: I think writers tend to support things that reflect what they themselves do. I support both, but I admit to getting annoyed when writers think writing is all about their own expression and reader experience isn't a critical part of making something sellable or even enjoyable.

Percival Constantine: Both absolutely are needed. I think a lot of the division comes from the starving artist stereotype. There's this myth that if you write for money, you're betraying the artform and are a sell-out, which I think absolutely needs to be dispelled. If you're only writing for the sake of art and feel that money shouldn't be part of the equation, then why are you selling books in the first place as opposed to giving them away for free?

Corrina Lawson: I've no idea why writers or other creative types do this. Creative people need to eat. This is an art but it's also a job.

Frank Fradella: The conversation of "art vs. commerce" is an internal dialogue. It's a mental shift. It doesn't come from the audience. You can deviate from what's come before all you want, but you better be good enough to pull it off. That's the only reason why guys like Neil Gaiman and David Mack became such game changers in comics. It's not that you CAN'T go against the grain and bring new art into the world, but only a craftsman who's turned the corner and made it a profession can do it for a living.

Lance Stahlberg: I had no idea that they did. Anyone who thinks in terms of "Writing to sell" clearly does not get it.

Of course once you get into publishing your work, you start to think in terms of what market to target and how to reach them. But you write the story first, then you figure out how to get people to read it. Not the other way around. Even that's the wrong approach. You don't treat them separately at all. You do both concurrently.

Starting with the question "How can I sell a million copies to X market" before you&# 39;ve typed a word is a recipe for disaster. You make an interesting character. You pit them against an interesting conflict that follows a plot that you think people will enjoy. That's art. And that's marketing. Favoring one concept over the other is nonsense. To me, they are one in the same. If you focus too hard on appealing to readers, you are dooming yourself. It is impossible to please everyone. Don't bother. But if you think "to hell with what other people like" and write only what you like... well maybe you'll still have a commercial success on your hands without realizing it. More likely, it'll suck and won't sell. But you won't care. Because you're an arteest and above such things.

What advice do you have for writers pursuing a living wage in art?

Iscah: Nearly every career field allows for opportunities where artistic skills can enhance what you do. So don't think you have to be a full time artist to make art. Drawing, writing, dancing as a career is a labor of love, but it's still labor. What's fun for a few hours make not be fun 9 to 5. So I advise only attempting a career in the arts if it's something you passionately love doing. Otherwise pursue something more stable so you can continue to enjoy art as a hobby.

You could write whole books answering 3 and/or 4. The advice is more specific depending on what field of art you want to pursue. But quitting the day job is exactly what some people need to do... Or more accurately, making it your day job.

Percival Constantine: If your goal is to make a living wage, then the first thing you have to do is get rid of this imaginary divide between art and commerce. Stories are an artform, whether it's books, movies, TV, comics, games, whatever, and people pay money for them all the time, and your story is no different. Write the story, make it as good as you can, and then get out there and sell it, whether you're selling it to an agent, a publisher, a studio, or directly to your customers. Then repeat the process again. Also, learn about whatever industry you're trying to make a living in. If you have the attitude of "I'm an artist and don't want to be bothered with the commercial side of things," then your chances of making a living wage will drastically decrease. You can't separate yourself from the commercial side and expect to be successful.

Corrina Lawson: Money brings choices. Create a secondary skill that will support your creative work and then you can make a real choice between art and writing to sell. the eldest son wants to pursue screenwriting but is also interested in accounting. My advice: learn that, use it to bring in income so creative choices aren't based on "I need that $500 to buy groceries."

Lee Houston Jr.: Art wise, I try to make each work the best I humanly can before submitting it to its prospective publisher. Yet it may be years after I'm no longer on this planet before the public makes a final decision on whether or not my work deserves to be remembered throughout the course of time.

If you mean commercialism as marketing, I certainly want my readers to know when the next release of whatever I have created is available.

All the projects I have done so far have either been for the sheer joy of writing or the creative challenge involved. If given the opportunity, there are a few things I would love the chance to do (like reviving Ellery Queen for today's audience), but again, it's more for the writing/challenge than the money that might be involved.

Regardless of what perspective you look at writing from, create the best possible work you can, because it is quality that will attract and maintain your readership in the long run, not quantity. And of course, it doesn't hurt to love what you do and do what you love, regardless of what career your pursue.

Terri Smiles: If you are writing for the sake of art, marry well and don't give up the day job. I also believe there is a middle ground between art and commercial fiction which is what I pursue - "light," entertaining fiction that also explores what it is to be human and the deeper aspects of our lives. But I worked as a healthcare lawyer for many years to be able to write the way I want to write. Art does require sacrifice and I have the scars of years of servitude to show for it.

Marian Allan: All these questions have long and complex discussions rather than answers -- except the last two, which both have the same answer: Don't give up the day job.

Frank Fradella: The advice to "write what you know" is important in that the core emotional anchor of the story has to wring true. Even when you're being paid to write non-fiction. When I wrote and illustrated The Idiot's Guide to Drawing (with thanks to Tom Waltz), it was purely work for hire. It was the kind of work I'd never done before. But I approached that book with the core belief that everyone sucks at the beginning, and everyone can get better with a little advice and a lot of practice. That, I think, is what made that book successful.

Lance Stahlberg: Keep at it. Stay motivated to keep your butt in the chair and keep writing. Learn the craft. Finish your story. Then learn the business. If you have the stoma ch and money for self-publishing, cool. Otherwise learn how to write a good submission letter. Network with editors and/or don't give up on finding an agent who will treat you right.

Do what you love. But don't pin too much of your hopes on being able to quit your day job. That could well come in time, but not if you neglect the art. Don't lose sight of why you wanted to be a writer in the first place.

Jack Wallen: Write what your heart and soul begs you to write. I write a number of very different series. As I am finishing up one book, I follow what my soul wants to write next. I never know what that’ll be. The second you give over and write what you think will sell, you lose. Why? Because what is selling when you begin might well not be what’s selling when you’re ready to hit publish. Don’t follow the rule “Write what you know.” Instead... write what you love, what you have a passion for. In the end, it will come through in the words and the reader will enjoy it all the more.

Richard Lee Byers: Work steadily. Be flexible and open to whatever opportunities present themselves. Network. Follow guidelines and meet deadlines. Recognize that in today’s marketplace, even writers who are traditionally published must generally accept a fair amount of responsibility for promoting their work.

What advice do you have for writers pursuing art in a commercial culture?

Frank Fradella: You can be an artist all day long, but at the end of that day, if you don't treat your craft like a business, you are losing the field to those who do.

Richard Lee Byers: I’m not sure such writers need much advice. If you are genuinely indifferent to making any money from your work, then clearly, you couldn’t be alive at a better time. You can self-publish on the Internet without ever having to compromise your personal vision by considering the marketplace or seeking to accommodate a traditional publisher’s requirements.

Terri Smiles: If the primary goal for your writing is maximizing income, don't write for what's hot now, write for what's just starting to garner interest. It's hard to tell, but you'll be ahead of the curve.

Iscah: Understand the steadiest paychecks come from working on other people's projects. A graphic designer or journalist will see steadier income than a gallery artist or novelist. A novelist willing to ghost write or work with a franchise may reap more financial reward than one who insists on only writing in their own worlds. However financial rewards are not the only rewards available.

There's a crass side to commercialism, but usually truly great art or writing is much easier to sell and will endure much longer than shoddy work. It's all somewhat subjective and at the mercy of the market. But a career in the arts is often a test of endurance as much as anything else.

Jack Wallen: If you opt to go the commercial route, you have to spend a lot of time following trends. In fact, you can’t just follow trends, you have to predict trends. As I said, the second you start writing that book based on a current trend, by the time you finish that trend may be played out. You’ve got to be one step ahead of the game to really be successful. That takes a lot of energy and time, so you have to be willing to put in the extra effort before you begin writing that first word. You can be lazy and pay close attention to what Hollywood is releasing in the future, as that can help as a guide. For example, Gone Girl was just released and has been a serious success. Six months ago, you should have been on top of that and ready to release something in the same vein.

Percival Constantine: Depends on what is meant by pursuing art in a commercial culture. If you mean trying to create art without caring about making money, then that's simple—do whatever you want. Just go in with the understanding that if you don't learn about the commercial side of things, you probably shouldn't quit your day job.

Corrina Lawson: Know your core story. Know what changes you can live with and what you can't. And make sure if you sell your rights, you get something for them. Never sign a contract with an agent or intellectual property rights attorney to look it over.

Lance Stahlberg: Sorry, but that question does not compute.  If you write strictly for fun and only post for free to fanfic boards and whatnot with no interest in selling it... God love you. You don't need advice and probably don't want it. If you want your work to stand out in a competitive market, the answer is the same as #3 above.

Lee Houston Jr.: If you mean commercialism as marketing, I certainly want my readers to know when the next release of whatever I have created is available.

All the projects I have done so far have either been for the sheer joy of writing or the creative challenge involved. If given the opportunity, there are a few things I would love the chance to do (like reviving Ellery Queen for today's audience), but again, it's more for the writing/challenge than the money that might be involved.

Regardless of what perspective you look at writing from, create the best possible work you can, because it is quality that will attract and maintain your readership in the long run, not quantity. And of course, it doesn't hurt to love what you do and do what you love, regardless of what career your pursue.

Planetary Stories is launching a contest!

Each issue of Planetary Stories, Pulp Spirit and Wonderlust will be carrying the winner of that contest.

While making the above statement, I realize there is a chance it won't work out. We might not have enough winners, as there is only a few months before our first deadline, which will be September 15th. However, we will do our best to publicize this contest and make that statement come true.

There are three categories, one for stories 250 words or less, one for stories up to 500 words, and flash fiction up to 1,000 words. ONE WINNER PER CATEGORY. The winner in each category will receive five cents per word, as well as a book from the Featured Author. No duplicate entries are allowed.

Each Featured Author will have a book of his on display, similar to those on either side. Anyone can click on the book to purchase it, but the winner will receive a copy and his check.

Stories should be submitted to planetarystories@gmail.com. Single-spaced and 14 pt Arial or Times New Roman is suggested.

We at Planetary Stories are excited about this new development, and are anxious to see the beginning of the submissions.

A panel of judges will determine the winner.

For more info, visit http://www.planetarystories.com/ContestPage.htm

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.

The Hero's Journey -- To Campbell Or Not To Campbell

Heroes walk around in circles a lot.

This week, let's look at the hero's journey and how it applies the work of creating stories.

When you create an adventure for your hero, do you think in terms of quest and journey, and to what degree? If not, why do they not appeal to you?

Lee Houston Jr.: To me, "quest" implies an actual search for something, while "journey" is more about the voyage itself, and life is the ultimate trip for everyone, so it would depend upon the character. Right now Alpha (my superhero) will be embarking upon a quest to discover himself and his place in the universe starting with his second book. Meanwhile, Hugh Monn, Private Detective has been more upon a journey. He's wanting to live his life the best he can and leave the dark past I've been hinting at in the character behind him. But in his third book...

Bill Craig: Every story involves a quest of some sort, whether it is the answer to a question ie a mystery, finding a lost treasure, self-discovery, or the meaning of life.  No story can begin without there being an underlying quest.  Example: In my Decker P.I. Title A Cold and Lonely Death, after Sam Decker meets a girl on the beach, she is murdered so he sets out on a quest to find out why.  In my Jericho Walls, Texas Ranger title Trail to Trouble, the Texas Ranger comes across a dying man and sets out on a quest to bring his killers to justice.  In Atlas Shrugged, the reader joins a quest to answer the question Who is John Gault?  Every story is driven by a quest of some sort.

Van Allen Plexico: My focus is almost always on the central characters and how they change (or are changed) by the events of the story.  I realize that in pulp this isn't "quite" as true as in other forms of fiction, since the serial nature of the stories (the main character bouncing from victory to victory across years or decades of publications) requires (or even demands) less change than in other fiction.  Nonetheless, when I write any kind of fiction I try to centralize most everything around "What is the protagonist like at the beginning, what happens to them along the way, and how have they changed as a result?"

H. David Blalock: All writers use the concept of the hero's journey whether they know it or not. It's not difficult to do. It is, after all, instinctive even in writers.

Jim Park: Mostly with Me, the entire story-line form's by itself, easily and fully... then I just Name, sex, and fit all the Characters, clothes, even background fill-in's to the storyboard.

Nancy Hansen: I don't think of it in the classic Joseph Campbell sense, I'm just trying to get a tale told and make it interesting along the way. It often turns out sounding like a heroic quest or epic journey because that's what makes a good story more appealing. I'm generally not an outliner; I start with a visual idea for a pivotal scene, or now and then I might want to write something including an issue that speaks to me, and then the story builds itself around that. In the anthology I wrote that just got released (THE HUNTRESS OF GREENWOOD), there are two stories that contrast those criteria. For 'Winter Of The White Beasts' I had a mental image of a grieving farm wife standing in her snowy yard with the partly mutilated corpses of her father and husband before her, and I gave that story to Roshanna. In 'The Archer Monk' I'd been reading about how the VA was struggling for funding to treat our American military people who were wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I got thinking about how that would be handled in Roshanna's world—which lead to a former archer turned monk entering an archery contest with a cash prize that he wants to use to help treat neglected veterans. Sometimes I'm not sure what's the purpose of the adventure is until the story is pretty much told. Like it real life, my characters often have those introspective moments well after the crisis ends.

Raydeen Graffam: I tend to think of it as 'change' -- like the inciting incident. From that point, the character changes. Everything that happens changes not only the character but the path. And hopefully the reader changes in some way as well.

Shelby Vick: I like starting with action, whilst painting a colorful picture for the reader. Often my only 'outline' is: Hero is in trouble, is faced with a dilemma, is faced with horrific creatures that seem unbeatable, sometimes slips - but always pulls himself up, perseveres and, despite great opposition, wins.

For those who do use the framework of the journey to some degree, is it something you've internalized or is it something you consciously apply to your plotting and planning?

And some journey over and over again.

Robert C. Roman Jr.:  While I'm writing, I keep things a bit more organic. I'm telling a story, and evolution of character is driven by and in turn drives events. It's not a question of appeal so much as habit. I turn to the journey / quest model when I'm stuck or reviewing, to see if there is something I've forgotten that will unstick me or enhance the tale. I'd say it's completely valid as an abstract, living model, but too many try to use it as a concrete, rigid structure. When used that way, it fails.

Nancy Hansen: It's definitely internalized with me. I have a series of novels right now starting with FORTUNE'S PAWN that have a journey aspect to them, though the main characters are basically just being swept along by both prophecy and events. I'm an organic writer, I let the story tell me what it needs. As long as I know where I want it to arrive, I just point and shoot from the keyboard.


Bill Craig: The quest is always going to be there.  The question usually comes in how am I going to use the quest to define both the characters and the story?  Because the events the characters undergo, the challenges they face, help define them as people and as characters.  What challenges will they face, how much adversity will it take to push them beyond what they thought they were limited to?  Will the experience make them stronger?  Or will it break them?  I usually work from a one-two paragraph outline, which usually defines the quest in the broadest possible terms, however it is always in the back of my mind as I work and comes out in the telling of the story by providing those defining moments for hero, villian, and peripherial characters.

H. David Blalock: The "hero's journey" concept is, IMHO, applicable to all literature, not just fantasy and highbrow. Joseph Campbell summarized the steps, but the basic idea is the hero gets a call, overcomes obstacles with and without help, faces the final
enemy alone then during the anticlimax may run into a minor problem to further imprint and accentuate his growth.

Lee Houston Jr.: Even if your writing episodic adventures of a character, where what happened in today's tale may never be referenced again; there is no way you can totally ignore past events within that character's life, because that's what adds the details and help shapes that person into who they are. The same goes for real life as well. While I do not make such a perspective the forefront of my work, it is a point of view that I always keep in mind when I write. For the Pulp Obscura projects I've worked on, I read all the previous adventures of each character, and then wrote my contribution as if it was the very next installment of that particular series.

Is it still even valid for today's stories, or should the hero's journey remain relegated to fantasy and highbrow fiction?

You mean there was a plan to this trip after all?

Charles Berton: My son brings up the hero's journey a lot. I always say fine, but let it not be deliberate. I'm always skeptical of formulas. I'm also skeptical about gearing your story towards a certain genre or demographic too. But I know that with many, business is business. I put art before business, but then after the art is created, THEN I put on my business hat.

H. David Blalock: Novels and short stories depend on that structure. It's what people expect because it satisfies some basic instinct in each person: that the individual can overcome any challenge. After all, if we can't, what's the purpose of life?

Lee Houston Jr.: While it may not be at the forefront of every story, or even an obvious search like for the deus ex machina of the tale, the journey is just as important (at least to me) as the adventures themselves, for the reasons I stated in the previous two questions about how they affect people, both real and imagined.

Bill Craig: The Hero's Journey is part of every story that is told, be it about a homeless kid with nothing who goes on to be a successful business man or crook, to that of a frightend youn unwed mother striking out to make a life for her unborn child, it is all part of the same story laid out in the simple framework of the Hero's Journey.  It is valid today as it was when the idea was first put forth, be it fantasy, western, space opera, adventure story, romance, thriller, mystery or "mainstream" literature whatever that may be.

Nancy Hansen: What—fantasy isn't highbrow fiction? Nobody ever told me! I don't get too caught up in trying to moralize, because it slows a story down. My early writer training was in writing for children and teenagers. One thing that was stressed was not to preach or moralize to the readers, but to let the characters figure things out on their own, and show what they've learned in the course of the tale. I've never forgotten that, and it's served me well. I think you can do a hero's journey in any story—and that includes pulp— as long as you have light touch with it and don't let the weight of the lessons learned yank down the entertaining moments of action and adventure. So if you're going to have an introspective moment, either do it in the trenches while the bullets are flying and bombs are exploding all around, or later in the tavern while the swords are clean and sheathed, the ogre's head is on a pike outside the town gate, and a second round ale is on the house. Little snips here and there, inserted into a story, are enough to let the reader know our heroine has grown up a bit.