The Pulp Revolution & Superversive SF

After reading the below posts by JimFear138 and Anthony M., I have decided to weigh on this controversy? Dust up?

Let’s Talk “Hard SF”:

No Genre Purity Tests! at Superversive SF:

Clearing Up Some Confusion:

Full disclosure: while neither group would probably claim me and I think both groups are doing great work, I am closer to the Pulp Revolution in taste.

I want to pick up the battle metaphor that JimFear138 mentions in his blog post “Clearing Up Some Confusion”. The most important thing that the Pulp Revolution & the Superversive SF folks can do is to remember that they have the same enemy. Also…








Now, sometimes during battle, perhaps an ally tosses a grenade a little bit too close to you, but you would not immediately turn on them, would you? Maybe question them, maybe say “Hey! Watch it!”, but you would not declare them your nemesis and open fire on them. I am not necessarily saying that is happening here, but I want to prevent it. I see the potential seeds of that bitter fruit being sown between these two communities.

I am simply asking each group to have some kindness and grace with each other. Can both sides simply decide to take what the other says in the best possible light and assume the best in each other?


4 thoughts on “The Pulp Revolution & Superversive SF

  1. I am a big fan of the pulp rev guys! I support the movement to bring the pulp works to the fore, and in fact with Josh Young have a weekly superversive column at Castalia House; in fact, if you check there now you’ll find my most recent article.

    My disagreements are nothing more than that. I certainly do NOT conaider them enemies!

    – Anthony M


  2. On the issue of breaking the ideological stranglehold that a few large corporations have had on the publishing industry I can safely say that I am in agreement with Indies of all sorts. We are fellow travellers here, Puppies, Pulp Rev, Alt Furry, Superversive, and so on. On this subject I will encourage anyone who wants to write no matter what they write and anyone who wants to read, likewise.

    However, the significant agreement that we all have on the subject of access to the open marketplace of ideas does not mean that I must abandon my philosophical convictions on the nature of art in general and fiction in particular. Nor will agreeing that someone has a right to publish a particular work cause me to be silent regarding my opinion of that work.

    Granted, I do try to be civil in my discussions of literary theory, primarily because I believe that incivility is the mark of a poorly advanced theory. But I can (and will) say that I think that someone should be encouraged to publish their work and at the same time say that I think that person should be encouraged to reexamine their philosophy of fiction.


    1. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. I should clarify that if someone writes something terrible, it should be criticized for being terrible. However, that person should still have, in your words, “access to the open marketplace of ideas”.

      I apologize if I gave the impression that we should blindly praise a work simply because it is ideologically in line with what we agree with. That was not my intent.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s