Post is pinned.
Are you a new recruit to the #pulprevolution? A users manual:

We're here to push the pulp aesthetic in new directions and cultivate new stories that reflect the aesthetic that made the best writers of the pulp era great.

Conversations can get heavy when we wander into the weeds of lit crit and philosophy. Come prepared to be challenged by those who disagree. This is technically a moderated group, but I will only censor spam and actual abuse. I may ask the parties to retire from the field with honor if there's an obvious personality clash that is disrupting the group, but that's as far as I'll go: I'm not your mother.

For readers
Come here to share and discuss stories new and old, films and TV, old time radio, fan history, the lot. If you post artwork, please provide some information on where it's from, who the artist is, when it was done, etc. This is especially useful for illustrations liberated from actual magazines, so we can cross-reference to the stories.

Short reviews - especially of new work - are definitely welcome, as are links to your blog for longer reviews. I don't think character assassination of authors, no matter what their stripes, will find a welcoming audience. We judge work on its merits.

For writers pro or non
As above, but also to talk about the process and matters regarding publication.

And YES you may promote your books/stories if you like (use "Hot off the press"), and if they are pulp aesthetic work (ie relevant). We may have harsh words for you if you abuse this, and if self-promotion is all you do you may find yourself joining the other spammers. I WILL delete multiple postings of the same item. You have been warned. You can also expect that the community will tell you what they think.

If you're seeking feedback, please use the "snippets and seeking beta-readers" category to solicit comment or advice. Note:

- you can post whole snippets of your work for comment. Please try to focus on a particular passage you want feedback on. Be prepared for blunt, honest responses varying from "I liked/hated it" to a detailed analysis of what you did wrong (mostly the former) and probably also suggestions of how to improve it. You may also get crickets. You'll need a thick skin, but we do want to help you, I promise.

- to protect you in case you're intending submission, if you want feedback on a full manuscript, it's best to post a call for beta-readers with a brief description of the work and an explanation of what you expect, then contact volunteers directly for private discussion. Be clear whether you're looking for free line editing, or just commentary on what works and what doesn't. If you're willing to pay for services, by all means ask. Probably someone can point you in the right direction.

Popped a few stories from 1940s Planet Stories into the style analyzer

as a point of comparison:

Post has attachment
Seeking contributors to
it is literally nothing right now but Jheric and I reserved the domain last week, we hope to have a flood of articles and fiction there soon. Anyone who shoots me an email - do you have DMs in G+? - will receive an author invite to the Blogspot blog that now occupies that domain.

If you have a short story you've given up on publishing put it there. If you have an article you wanted to write but you didn't want to maintain a blog put it there. If you do have a blog put the article on anyway, with a prominent link back to it. Copyright always reserved to the original author for all time.

We're hoping this can be a grand central location for PulpRev, something more tightly focused on the literature and the fandom than the Castalia House Blog, which of course we hope you'll keep checking at the same time. The project's in its infancy but we think it's gonna be a big boy soon.

Post has attachment
I think I found a much better style analyzer based on stuff in Project Gutenberg;

Gives a correlation similar to the image.

Post has attachment

Tested 4 stories, including one from 24 years ago. All came up the same even after clearing cookies.

I do, however, note the lack of any pulp-era authors except Lovecraft and Chandler included in the data for comparative analysis.

Post has shared content
A new blog focused on quick tasters of pulp classics, and links to online archives of the texts.

Post has attachment
So apparently there's this meme going around, recently retweeted by a scottish SF author who's on record as listing a buch of sweet SF tropes as being "bad scifi", where you post a picture like this and say "You have been visited by Lenin Cat - retweet/reshare/whatever-local-idiom-is to seize the means to production."

File under "they do not understand the irony"

By the way my #pulprev minions, you have been visited by Lenin Cat. But you lot are already seizing the means of production, so by all means carry on.

But house rule: No Gulags. Got it? 

Post has attachment
In case anyone was wondering where the best place to set a supernatural action story involving powered-up priests would be, it appears Brazil's got you covered. (Doesn't it always?)


Post has attachment
Evidence the #pulprevolution is going to blow them away

OK, so my research agrees with most of what Stross has to say about the mechanics of publishing. Note that near the end he "confesses" to bloat (actually he's right that the nature of splitting adds pages, and I believe him about the extras) but more importantly points out that more money can be made from multiple books than from one book with the same total length.

OK, so why is this meaning PulpRev wins?

Easy: PulpRev favours shorter work, meaning writers produce more individual works per year. As a result, #PulpRev favours authors who are also publishers - ie indie - because those authors get more of the money from those multiple works.

We win because no matter what we're more productive, and we win because we go home richer.

So get out there! #writeit ! #printit ! 

Post has attachment
Ok people, if no one uses this I shall be very disappointed!

Wait while more posts are being loaded