A few years ago when I had started this blog, an acquaintance was critical of the books I chose to review. "Why don't you ever go to fiction?," he said. Said I, "There's too much bad stuff. Unless you stick to the old classics, chances are you're going to be wasting your time. At least with non-fiction, you get some information and a genuine point of view."
Welp, I've just wasted several days of my time and will waste another night to finish a fiction mediocrity, The Eye of God by James Rollins. I should have read all the "praises" for it on the dust cover, for one compares it to the "grand tradition" of adventure books that includes Clive Cussler, another (in my humble opinion) waste of time.
I know these authors because they write of strange things - I mean, why wouldn't someone interested in spiritual issues be drawn to a title such as "The Eye..." ? The bigger question, one I'm sure asked by English graduate students every year, is: how can one judge quality?
Certainly, there is familiarity and ease of fluency with the language, but Rollins is technically a good writer, and his editor is almost flawless in his corrections. There is rhythm as well, something that I discovered myself from writing; good prose writing has a rhythm much like poetry or music. It is impossible for me to define it exactly, for it is not like 4/4 time or iambic pentameter, but it is real. I first discovered it as I wrote Dream Weaver and found myself tapping my foot to its beat. It's something, I suppose, like a free - jazz musician feels; it's in the bones. But, while Rollins's work does not have a classic rhythm, there is most certainly an adequate rhythm.
What, then, defines quality? Yes, it must come from the soul - but talk about the undefinable. And even that is not enough. There are a million personal essays written from the soul, but most are often overwrought, self focused, and/or trite. Tear jerkers, they are called, and many are truly from the heart. But corny.
I have had issues with this, too, and found that I cannot be too emotionally involved in such writing. To create a good work, it must be objective, even if dealing with an emotional subject. It must be dry-eyed, to leave the reader to his own feelings. If it is focused on self, it brings that trite, boring quality. It must be as if witnessed by an impartial judge. It must be as if witnessed by nature, the nature that has no mother (or father) in it; the nature that both gives life and takes it away, without partiality. Human emotions can be injected into it, but not as the driving force behind the entire piece.
On further thought, good writing must be one in the same with spiritual insight. This does not demand belief in a god - Buddhists do not have a god as we understand it, and there have been atheist authors of classical pieces. Yet the former DO recognize the spiritual presence, and the latter a depth to life that often brings forth books based on the author's frustration with his lack of understanding (Kurt Vonnegut is the most familiar to me of this sort of author. There are several more in the "existentialist" ranks). Again, they are all dry-eyed, even as they might make you weep. And they tap a vein that runs through everything, just like the spiritual force. Whether these authors like it or not, this vein that is essential to quality IS the spiritual force.
But I run too deep here - there are good thrillers that do not share this spiritual quality (I like Tom Clancy, I must admit). They are simply good stories. But they usually run only culture-deep. They usually will not be seen as classics a generation later, and certainly not one hundred or two hundred years later. Moby Dick is a fiction classic because of its spiritual connection; The Hunt for Red October is simply a good story for males raised in the era of the Cold War.
There is quality in writing, in music, as well as quality in life. Of the latter, all lives eventually wind up being classics, because the individuals who live them are inseparable from the deep vein of spirituality. But for most of us, this quality eludes us except at exceptional times. To live a quality life overall would be to feel the spiritual undercurrent in all things at all times; to view impartiality events that are up-close and personal; and to feel compassion for those both close and far, but without personal distraction. It would be like living the way an author of classics writes, which happens to mirror the essential quality of the wisest of gurus, shamans and priests. FK
Welp, I've just wasted several days of my time and will waste another night to finish a fiction mediocrity, The Eye of God by James Rollins. I should have read all the "praises" for it on the dust cover, for one compares it to the "grand tradition" of adventure books that includes Clive Cussler, another (in my humble opinion) waste of time.
I know these authors because they write of strange things - I mean, why wouldn't someone interested in spiritual issues be drawn to a title such as "The Eye..." ? The bigger question, one I'm sure asked by English graduate students every year, is: how can one judge quality?
Certainly, there is familiarity and ease of fluency with the language, but Rollins is technically a good writer, and his editor is almost flawless in his corrections. There is rhythm as well, something that I discovered myself from writing; good prose writing has a rhythm much like poetry or music. It is impossible for me to define it exactly, for it is not like 4/4 time or iambic pentameter, but it is real. I first discovered it as I wrote Dream Weaver and found myself tapping my foot to its beat. It's something, I suppose, like a free - jazz musician feels; it's in the bones. But, while Rollins's work does not have a classic rhythm, there is most certainly an adequate rhythm.
What, then, defines quality? Yes, it must come from the soul - but talk about the undefinable. And even that is not enough. There are a million personal essays written from the soul, but most are often overwrought, self focused, and/or trite. Tear jerkers, they are called, and many are truly from the heart. But corny.
I have had issues with this, too, and found that I cannot be too emotionally involved in such writing. To create a good work, it must be objective, even if dealing with an emotional subject. It must be dry-eyed, to leave the reader to his own feelings. If it is focused on self, it brings that trite, boring quality. It must be as if witnessed by an impartial judge. It must be as if witnessed by nature, the nature that has no mother (or father) in it; the nature that both gives life and takes it away, without partiality. Human emotions can be injected into it, but not as the driving force behind the entire piece.
On further thought, good writing must be one in the same with spiritual insight. This does not demand belief in a god - Buddhists do not have a god as we understand it, and there have been atheist authors of classical pieces. Yet the former DO recognize the spiritual presence, and the latter a depth to life that often brings forth books based on the author's frustration with his lack of understanding (Kurt Vonnegut is the most familiar to me of this sort of author. There are several more in the "existentialist" ranks). Again, they are all dry-eyed, even as they might make you weep. And they tap a vein that runs through everything, just like the spiritual force. Whether these authors like it or not, this vein that is essential to quality IS the spiritual force.
But I run too deep here - there are good thrillers that do not share this spiritual quality (I like Tom Clancy, I must admit). They are simply good stories. But they usually run only culture-deep. They usually will not be seen as classics a generation later, and certainly not one hundred or two hundred years later. Moby Dick is a fiction classic because of its spiritual connection; The Hunt for Red October is simply a good story for males raised in the era of the Cold War.
There is quality in writing, in music, as well as quality in life. Of the latter, all lives eventually wind up being classics, because the individuals who live them are inseparable from the deep vein of spirituality. But for most of us, this quality eludes us except at exceptional times. To live a quality life overall would be to feel the spiritual undercurrent in all things at all times; to view impartiality events that are up-close and personal; and to feel compassion for those both close and far, but without personal distraction. It would be like living the way an author of classics writes, which happens to mirror the essential quality of the wisest of gurus, shamans and priests. FK
RSS Feed