Pulp and Noir

I preface with an apology to Jason Olsan - dude, it's not you, it's the industry. You just got me thinking about it :)

The newly overused term "pulp-noir" has really started to grate on my nerves of late. It all started with Eberron's massive marketing campaign, and has crept from there into gamers' vernacular, and on into new media just describing Eberron computer games, and other "old" 20's-40's themed pieces. This must stop - my hate for this phrase is nearing my disgust for the use of cat-people in games (as described in this post).

Pulp and noir are two very different genres. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are on the polar opposite ends of the story telling spectrum, thesis and antithesis.

Pulp, particularly the Golden Age of pulp as recounted in characters like Doc Savage or more recently Indiana Jones and the Rocketeer, is about adventure and epic encounters. The stakes are always high and the heroes define what's right and good in the world. Very often, the characters of these stories are modern incarnations of Greek epic heroes like Odysseus - bright, gifted, powerful men who are as good with the ladies are they are with a quick gun or a firm sock to the jaw. Pulp characters change the world, explore exotic new lands, and ultimately overcome all challenges laid before them by the end of the reel. They are what their audience should aspire to be, for they represent possibility and adventure and romance.

Noir, particualarly the Golden Age of film as exemplified by characters by Jeff Bailey of Out of the Past and Sam Spade of The Maltese Falcon, is about corruption and dangerous encounters. The stakes are always risky and the heroes and villains alike blur the line of right and wrong. Very often, the characters of these stories are modern incarnations of the players in a Greek tragedy - inherently flawed, cursed by fate, as much a sucker for the ladies as an easy score or an old habit. Noir characters are suffocated by the world, explore the darkest reaches of modern urban society, and ultimately succumb to the vagaries of fate by the end of the reel. They are what the audiences should be afraid to be, for they represent the basest actions, dark thoughts and foolishness in all of us.

I think the confusion stems from two factors.

1) Both were created in a past that seems lost to us, a time of world wars and hooch-smugglers and gangsters. The hard boiled novel, the foundation for the noir hero, is a contemporary of the pulp novel and likely shared the same dimestore racks. But pulp and noir are products of two different ages: pulp novels were immensely popular in the 20's, a time of progress and prosperity, where everything was blue sky and the stock market couldn't be stopped; noir came about after the depression and the horrific revelations of the second World War, a time when we came to know the heart of darkness in men, the destructive power of the atom, and that things can always get worse.

2) Many people think of noir as an aesthetic. It is, but not just a visual one, with deep shadows and black and white film, which is often confused by modern films that want to incorporate noir imagery into a pre WWII style. Noir is an attitude, a cynicism about the world that pulp never shared. Its take is essentially negative, that human beings are frail, flawed, and easily drawn towards self-destruction. Its aesthetic penetrates storytelling, character development, expression, and yes, lighting. Where pulp is about hope, noir is about fate. Where pulp aspires, noir wades. Where pulp glamorizes, noir sullies.

So in the end I say - don't use the adjective 'pulp-noir'. It only makes you look like a dumbass at worst, or an ignoramus at best. At least, to noir snobs like me ;)

P.S. - Incidentally, I own 9 of the 10 most cynical films, as listed by this IMDB user. Is it any surprise that I love noir?