soft core pulp in context

[Jay]

Westlake's __ Adios Scheherazadei s about a writer who hates doing soft core novels but likes the money. At first, his love making with wife is beatific (described in euphemistic soft core clichés). But the wife discovers the writer’s “diary.” It’s fiction, written for himself to use one-handedly—just as his soft core male readership did. . But the wife, understandably, thinks it records what he really did. The story is an example of vicarious, fantasizing, and of scopophilia: the substitution of the eye for the penis; “sex in the head” (D H Lawrence).

So the wife is right to wonder if there is a difference between reality and fantasy in hubby’s prurient fantasizing. His writing provides the sex thrill (climax) instead of love making with the wife. The whole thing is a kind of entrapment, body and mind. Westlake’s protagonist wanted his lust alleviated, not a shared experience. So do his readers.

As a writer, Westlake’s soft core novelist, and his colleagues, could have made their readers aware of the dangers of reading soft core. Obviously, Westlake, in_ Adios, Scheherazade_, did.

Qquite possibly, others did also. Lawrence Block, Westlake, Evan Hunter, Robert Leslie Bellem, Ennis Willie, Gil Orlovitz, Harlan Ellison, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Richard E Geis probably did publish sleaze paperbacks, often pseudonymously. They deserved to be proud of some of the results, for they equal those of colleagues in the pulp crime/adventure genre.

Ennis Willie wrote exclusively for soft core “secondary outlets.” The term refers to the distribution to the "porn row" type bookstores and to the spin racks in men’s specialty stores such as liquor and cigar establishments. Willie said he loved his books, despite the circumstances of their production and display. “Not being able to get on with [one’s] life until [one] writes, … plowing on into the unknown, that’s writing.”

It’s fascinatingly possible, despite the titles, most of which feature the buzzwords “shame,” “lust,” “forbidden,” or “dangerous.” If Goodis and Woolrich, who felt guilt at the way their books were stigmatized as low throwaway entertainment, could produce some of the most meaningful writing of their generation, why couldn't not Willie, and also Evan Hunter, Robert Leslie Bellem, , Gil Orlovitz, Harlan Ellison, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Richard E Geis, often pseudonymously?

[Jim]

An excellent topic! I stumbled across it earlier this year when I found Gang Girl/Sex Bum, a twofer written by Robert Silverberg with an excellent introduction by him on why he wrote them. 'Meaningful' wasn't an adjective he used. He did say it was an excellent education in how to write & quite lucrative. He was originally paid $600/book (My uncle was raising 3 kids on $75/week.) & eventually was cranking one out every 2 weeks. By that time, he was also being questioned by the FBI for his part in spreading salacious material.

The pulps had crashed & the US was being hammered by Dr. Fredric Wertham, a shrink of the Dr. Oz & Andrew Wakefield stripe who shut down the comics with the help of the Post Master. Their standards were incredible. Blood & gore knew no bounds, but the least bit of sexuality was a red flag.

If you're interested in who wrote what back then & the name they used, the page from Greenleaf Classics lists a bunch:
http://greenleaf-classics-books.com/v...

[Jay]

Thanks so much, Jim. I have Silverberg's essay on "My Life as a Pornographer," published in Feral house's Sin-A-Rama. Maybe that is the one you are referring to. I can see the soft-core paperback phenomenon as an inevitable development from the paperback revolution, one which made it less possible to write the kind of pulp crime or adventure or horror classics of the 1950s. But there was a lot of softcore sex in the pulp magazines, and in the crime newsstand paperbacks. It is hard to tell the difference sometimes. But publishers like Belmont, Tower, Merit, and Midwood could.

That Sin-A-Rama book has lists of writers by pseudonym and by author's name. It's by Earl Kemp, whose website is a first-rare document for popular erotic publishing.

[Jim]

Jay wrote: "Thanks so much, Jim. I have Silverberg's essay on "My Life as a Pornographer," published in Feral house's Sin-A-Rama. Maybe that is the one you are referring to..."

Silverberg's intro in "Gang Girl/Sex Bum" is titled "The Good Old Softcore Days", but I'd guess it has a lot of the same material. You can buy this book for $5 & I'd be interested to know how close the two versions are.

Both of these books are based on the popular kid-gang (Silverberg's description) novels of the previous decade. You can add Nightstand books to your list of publishers.

I'm not sure what you mean by it being an inevitable development, but it's not a subject that I have a great deal of knowledge about. I saw them more as a backlash to the crazy censorship of the time. I'm glad it happened, but I don't have an opinion on its inevitability.

The comics of the period had no sex in the text & were under incredible pressure to conform to a ridiculous Puritan standard. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How it Changed America shows the 50s were a time of horrific censorship in the US including authorities encouraging book burnings! Sex was the main demon, even overshadowing the anti-communist patriotic fervor of the time.

The SF & monster pulps from the 30s through the 50s had lurid covers that promised a lot of sex & never delivered. It's a well worn joke among those of us who have read them & is mentioned in every book I've read about them. I haven't read as many detective/mystery pulps or kid-gang books, but I don't recall ever seeing much sex in any of them from this time.

[Jay]

There was one horror comic that may have stimulated Mayor LaGuardia to stop distribution of horror comics in New York. On the cover, a snarling plug ugly was about to attack a woman. He resembled La Guardia on a very bad day.

[Christopher]

I wish I could contribute more to the discussion, b.c. I agree that it's hard to tell the difference, at this late date, given that all publishers were liable to be prosecuted for obscenity, and yet even the crime pbos are male fantasy novels.

I was reading an interview by someone who wrote paperbacks, and he said the formula of three sex scenes, early, middle, and late, was pretty much adhered to.

The interview was in Girl Gangs, Biker Boys, and Real Cool Cats: Pulp Fiction and Youth Culture, 1950 to 1980.

[Jim]

I've never understood our society's attitudes towards sex & violence. It's OK to depict gory, multiple deaths in fiction, but not sex. If an alien looked at our literature & then watched our actions, they'd be totally confused. We're completely hypocritical.

[Jay]

Christopher wrote: "I wish I could contribute more to the discussion, b.c. I agree that it's hard to tell the difference, at this late date, given that all publishers were liable to be prosecuted for obscenity, and ye..."

Soft core publishers were less likely to be prosecuted after the 1959 Chatterley verdict that allowed that erotic classic to be sent thru the mail. The Justice Dept therefore was less likely to win a court case, at least if the defendant could prove his publication had some literary or social value, and did not have penetration of scatology. That's why some sex novels have Introductions by "learned authorities." They sold incredibly well, affording many writers paydays. There are some terrific novels published by soft core outlets that do not have much of the soft core jargon ("swelling breasts"; "all-consuming maleness"; "ripe young body"). For ex., Ellson's Nightmare Street, Willeford's Pick Up, or presumably Ennis Willie's Spillane-type books, or Evan Hunter's (if he did indeed write them under pseudonyms). .

[Jay]

Jim wrote: "I've never understood our society's attitudes towards sex & violence. It's OK to depict gory, multiple deaths in fiction, but not sex. If an alien looked at our literature & then watched our action..."

Gershon Legman's Love and Death is about this conundrum. He suspected that a war-like society with the history of slavery, and destruction of Native American culture, fetishizes weaponry (and sells it as a leading export. Jobs, jobs). And citizens in any modern commercial society must restrain instincts in order to rationally trade with each other without distractions based on desire. Sex books are kind of vicarious diversion of sex desires from contact with sex *partners.* The frustrations are channeled into films, images, and reading matter.

Except for the filthy-rich, who have been able to take advantage of subordinates--as recent publicity is revealing. But in these cases, media always pull the same trick--they ostracize the villain (Profumo, Epstein) and do not pursue the reasons those villains were so successful. Their customers, with a few exceptions, like Prince Harry (bad Brit), lawyer up and hide behind influential connections. . What about this side of the Atlantic? Successful denials, hand on heart.

[Christopher]

Jay wrote: "What about this side of the Atlantic? Successful denials, hand on heart...."

There's a lot of false accusation too, Jay.

[Jim]

A variety of sexual mores have coexisted with imperialism & slavery longer than recorded history, so I think Gershon Legman isn't seeing the full picture & has a modern ax to grind. I think it has more to do with Abrahamic monotheists who seem obsessed not only with minding everyone else's business, but have weird sexual hang ups such as taking the story of Onan seriously. They also don't seem to have a killing masses of people, so long as they're not part of the tribe. This is well illustrated by Moses coming down off the mountain with 10 Commandments, one of which is "Thou shall not kill." then ordering the slaughter of a few thousand people. Let's not forget that he specified sparing the nubile virgins whom he passed around as gifts to his buddies.

[Jay]

Christopher wrote: "Jay wrote: "What about this side of the Atlantic? Successful denials, hand on heart...."

There's a lot of false accusation too, Jay."


Very true, Christopher.