They definitely can be mixed and often are. But I would define pulp as stories with lurid sensationalism often with hyperrealistic violence and situations, and more specifically stories of this style that were cheaply produced from the 1920s to the 1950s while noir is more of your hardboiled crime stories, specifically the ones that deal with emotionally dark plots of betrayal, moral abmiguity etc.
Punisher is the character that most readily comes to mind as a nice mix between the two. A comic like Fear Agent reminds me of pulp of old, while The Crow or Grendel strikes me as more explicitly noir.
I always thought of pulp as more adventure type stories, whereas noir is hardboiled crime stories. Pulp was always more heroic, noir was always more imperfect. And, generally, pulp can have a happy ending, whereas noir has an ending, but seldom what one could call, "happy."
Virtually any two styles can be blended, and you can have a mix of these.
The Noir protagonist cannot get ahead or improve him/her self. there is some inherent tragedy involved. However hard they try to escape they always get sucked in.
So I take it that noir can have a modern setting but how can a modern character be defined as 'pulpy'?
I think sometimes "pulp" gets used to describe a style or aesthetic. Or a choice of time period. For example, The Rocketeer is often described as pulpy because the story is set in the 1930s, and even the futuristic technology, like the jet pack, has a 1930s sense of futurism. Dave Stevens was celebrating pulp characters and tone in creating his adventure. So he made a "pulpy" character, even though he was doing so almost 50 years later.
So a 'pulp' character would be defined more from the setting the then any character attributes.
Hmm. That one is hard to parse-- since the setting (including the time period, fashion, and technology of the time) has a big influence on who the character is and what they look like, you know what I mean?
I do think that there is definitely a character attribute difference between pulp and noir, though-- this is a big generalization, but I would say that pulp characters are more aspirational and larger than life. Extraordinary, which is to say, you want to be them. They have the smarts or skills of 10 men. They have wealth, they have traveled the world, they are dashing, athletic, and heroic. They are better than us. They get the girl. Super.
Whereas noir characters, while perhaps cooler and much more wry than us, are also people that have real flaws and darkness. They are often damaged, and even bleak. We love them for it, and there are things they are good at we may wish we were good at, but most of us would not want to be them. The girl gets THEM. Human.
Also, as everything should come back to Batman- I would say that- despite all of his gothic darkness- Batman is more pulp than noir. Virtually all superheroes, even the detective-toned ones, are much more pulp than noir.
Also, as everything should come back to Batman- I would say that- despite all of his gothic darkness- Batman is more pulp than noir. Virtually all superheroes, even the detective-toned ones, are much more pulp than noir.
Definitely closer to the Shadow than Philip Marlowe.
So I take it that noir can have a modern setting but how can a modern character be defined as 'pulpy'?
The 70's "Men's adventure" boom with books like The Executioner, The Destroyer and the like are modern pulp. I would also say that the "Dirk Pitt" novels, "Jack Reacher" and "Spencer" novels qualify as modern pulp.
Pulp is pretty much action-based, entertainment novels. IMHO
I think I'm ok with noir. I feel I understand 'pulp' but then when I see it used for characters created now and particularly those in a modern setting I'm not sure if my understanding is in err or the fact that readers and/or creators want to describe said charcters in that manner.
miscatonic
Posts: 59
Comments
Punisher is the character that most readily comes to mind as a nice mix between the two. A comic like Fear Agent reminds me of pulp of old, while The Crow or Grendel strikes me as more explicitly noir.
Virtually any two styles can be blended, and you can have a mix of these.
I do think that there is definitely a character attribute difference between pulp and noir, though-- this is a big generalization, but I would say that pulp characters are more aspirational and larger than life. Extraordinary, which is to say, you want to be them. They have the smarts or skills of 10 men. They have wealth, they have traveled the world, they are dashing, athletic, and heroic. They are better than us. They get the girl. Super.
Whereas noir characters, while perhaps cooler and much more wry than us, are also people that have real flaws and darkness. They are often damaged, and even bleak. We love them for it, and there are things they are good at we may wish we were good at, but most of us would not want to be them. The girl gets THEM. Human.
Does that make sense?
Pulp is pretty much action-based, entertainment novels. IMHO