The New Woke Weird Tales

I’ll admit, I was incredibly apprehensive when I first saw that the most fabled name in pulps was yet again being resurrected for another zombie run cash-in on pulp nostalgia.

You guys know how I feel about that sort of stuff.

But to add insult to injury, Weird Tales is being relaunched with the editor explicitly condemning the original title as sexist, racist and homophobic.

New Weird Tales

If you think Weird Tales was such a bunch of regressive reprobate garbage, why did you buy it? Why are you selling it with an homage to a cover by the woman who made the magazine famous with tawdry paintings of lesbians flogging one another?

It’s because nostalgia sells.

It seems like a common modus operandi today to get ahold of a property just to crap it up.

I hate this sort of thing, because this is the sort of denigration of the pulps that actively discourages new readers from actually digging into them and seeing what they were really like. “Oh, don’t buy that old Weird Tales with its bad wrongthink stories; buy the new one, we promise we won’t offend your modern sensibilities!”

If you’re an author who would otherwise have considered submitting to Weird Tales, give us a look instead. We pay semi-pro rates for fiction [0.0125 per word] and will be opening in the October. Details are available in our submissions guidelines linked at the top of the page.

Or if you’re a reader who enjoys weird fiction and the pulps, give us a look. Our new issue will be out next month and features some great science fiction, fantasy, and classic weird horror.

2-2 Cover v 0.01 Front Only jpg

Lastly, don’t forget Wild Stars! If you want us to be able to continue doing what we’re doing, and especially want to support us in a way that will give us more funds to acquire stories in the Fall, be sure to back Wild Stars back Wild Stars!  Money we make from this project WILL be available in time for us to figure it into our acquisitions budget.

Back Covers

 

5 responses to “The New Woke Weird Tales

  1. I’m expect that the editor was honestly blindsided by the comments because one of his core beliefs is that anything produced before the current revolutionary moment must be problematic.

    Part of the progressive mindset is that no good thing can come from sources that have not been fully revolutionized. It’s the same mindset that made the Soviet Union claim that railroads had been invented by Soviet engineers and did not exist prior to the revolution.

    Furthermore, since that belief is a core of the progressive mindset, anyone who questions it–not just saying it is wrong, but simply asking for evidence to support it–is by definition a counterrevolutionary.

    I’m sure that everyone who the editor associates with “knows” that there was no decent treatment of non-males, non-straights, or non-whites prior to the current year. Evidence is unnecessary, it’s an article of faith.

    • And the reason that the emotional reaction is so strong to questioning that particular belief is that it justifies anything done in the name of the revolution.

      One who is working to advance the cause of the revolution will always be in the right so long as it is taken as given that the revolution is the only thing that can save the world from the evils of the past.

      If the evil of the past is ever seriously questioned, if the possibility that oppressed people maybe weren’t oppressed, that things were actually better for most people before the current social justice movement, well, then the true believers would have to face the consequences of the truly vile things they do and support on a regular basis.

      Being on the right side of history keeps the guilt at bay. There is no personal responsibility when one is a tool of destiny.

      • The thing that just absolutely baffles me is, if I were handed the reins to such a massively important and storied property, I would be out there shouting from the rooftops how great it was and the importance of the new work living up to the legacy of the old–the last thing I would conceive of doing would be to impugn the qualities of the original in an effort to boost the appearance of my own work by comparison.

      • Yes, but your intent would be to resurrect it. This editor wants the property in order to conquer it. It’s the same impulse that drives Muslims to transform a famous church in a conquered land into a mosque.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s