On the Need for Conservative Pulp

"...The man alone with a gun staring off into the distance? It’s the primordial American myth."

About a little over 100 years ago, America was overrun with trash. Not literal trash (though that may have been a factor in some places) but trash literature. “Pulp magazines,” so called because the paper they were made of consisted of wood pulp, the cheapest that publishers could buy, flooded the shelves of stores. No corner was left uncut in the making of these magazines. The edges were ragged. The pages unglossed. The authors were a collection of poorly paid eccentrics and lowlifes who could never make it in the traditional literary world of the time.

These magazines fast developed a bad reputation. The content was violent, lurid, irreverent, and weird. It was almost exclusively genre fiction—stories about detectives, cowboys, pirates, and crazy people—or non-fiction that was perhaps best left unbelieved. They were most popular among young men, their popularity greatly enhanced by the fact that the magazines were extremely cheap. Circulations ran into the hundreds of thousands, and eventually the millions.

Although pulps became infamous for having juvenile and low-quality stories, they also attracted people who would go on to have very high reputations. Horror pioneer H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Barbarian, spent their entire lives writing for pulps, and now are regarded as some of the greatest writers of the period. Other famous writers, from Agatha Christie to Joseph Conrad to Isaac Asimov also experimented with the format.

Pulp magazines certainly sold a lot of copies, but the real impact came from their long-term influence. A generation of young men read these books, were captivated, and then went on to make their own work. Stories written in these magazines inspired countless television and movie adaptations. The entertainment industry coasted on that energy for decades. It drove the culture in spite of the fact that many of the themes therein, masculinity, heroism, honor, were under constant attack during the period. There was a full-blown cultural revolution, and yet pulp survived.

Pulp fiction was full of life. It took readers to places they wanted to go. These stories are naturally compelling to people, despite whatever political message they’re being hit over the head with in the main stream. The art was very striking, it made you think. A while ago I watched “The Sound of Freedom” (2023), which was really good. The procedural aspect was the most compelling. I don’t know a lot about child trafficking or how law enforcement combats it. It’s interesting to find out how these dark worlds work and how the good guys overcome that. The movie was also genuinely well made. It looked great. It was well-directed. The acting was very strong.

And yet it didn’t land for me. I doubt I’ll ever watch it again. I don’t have any real complaint other than that it was missing the kind of vitality that you see in pulp fiction. The subject matter of “The Sound of Freedom” is genuinely awful. Several parts are hard to watch. At times it feels like a horror movie. This is to the credit of the team behind the movie, but I think ultimately mutes its long-term impact.

This is one of the few movies that pretty much every who identifies as conservative is going to see. Its closest equivalent is probably “Top Gun: Maverick” (America’s great patriotic epic). That movie was a breath of fresh air. The problems people encounter in their everyday lives were not present. Obviously, a movie about child trafficking is not going to be upbeat, but it really is a shame that the one movie every conservative saw and can talk about with each other was so bleak. People watch movies to be entertained. Positive messages always stick around longer than negative ones.

The strongest part of “The Sound of Freedom” was the middle section in Colombia. Unable to attack the traffickers’ network directly, the characters decide to create a fake child brothel of their own and request child prostitutes from the traffickers, so they can then be rescued. It was set up kind of like a heist movie. The characters themselves seemed excited because they were actively planning something clever. They go undercover and adopt fake personas. That section even has its own climax: The hairbrained scheme works. The Colombian federal police storm the place and save all the kids. Jim Caviezel gets to say the title of the movie. It’s great. I thought the movie was going to end there, and my thoughts on it would probably have been different if it had.

But the movie goes on. The satisfying victory is dashed by the hero’s descent into an even nastier situation. I get why it goes on because all of it is based on a true story, but ultimately a movie is a piece of art. It doesn’t have to be just a true story. Save it for the sequel. I just worry that there’s only so much audiences can take, and dwelling on really dark stuff has a negative impact on them.

The movie just played it too straight. It kept looking into the abyss. There are lots of moments where I was eagerly waiting for Caviezel (who looks like he’s about to explode for half the movie) to rip someone’s jaw off, but the moment never came. I know I’m not the only person with this feeling. Again, I realize that the movie is based on a true story but indulging in these lower impulses is kind of essential for entertainment media. Respect must be paid to artistic license. It’s time to inject a bit of pulp into conservative culture: A little bit more irreverence, a little bit more ruthlessness, and a little bit more fun.

I promise that this is the last hot take I’ll give on Oliver Anthony (I swear, I really do believe he’s a nice guy and not a bad actor or hicklib or anything like that), but he just released a new song called “I Want to Go Home” and all I could think was that it sounds like music to commit suicide to. This just cannot be what conservatives fixate on and center themselves around. This is especially true during bad times, when people are more demoralized then ever. Without a positive message or vital view of life, we are going nowhere. Anthony’s life is probably pretty good now, absent the problems that always accompany overnight fame. This trend just can’t last.

For decades conservatives have been boxed out of the entertainment industry. That means that the messages people receive from their screens are largely those crafted by liberals. Yellowstone, The Last of Us, Tulsa King, there are tons of shows and movies that inject political propaganda into exciting stories and conservatives often eat it up. People are drawn to exciting stories and dynamic characters. They want the pulp energy, even if it comes with them having to grin and bear messaging from people who hate them.

Today especially there is more desire for ever than an alternative to this arrangement. There’s also more money and talent than ever before to meet that demand. A concert held by Anthony shortly after his song “Rich Men North of Richmond” went viral attracted thousands of people. The theater I saw “Sound of Freedom” in was packed. Everyone clapped afterwards. People want to be a part of the new thing. I just hope that what they’re presented with to throw their support behind gives them something to really look forward to.