Fragment 53

In this "Fragment" I am going to continue with my philosophy of reading, and get to the book reviews. I am going to look at reading from another perspective than I did in the last "Fragment". I want to begin with an old memory of mine that stuck with me for decades. I was watching "Nightline" with Ted Koppel. The topic for the show was celibacy in the Catholic Church. The two guests were Father Andrew Greeely, and John Cardinal Krol. When I was young I was a big fan of "rapier wit" (this is actually a misnomer, Rapiers are long heavy swords, but Rapier wit sounds better than Colichemarde wit.), and the art of conversation. I remember people saying that the art of conversation was a dying art. Of course now, the art of conversation is dead and has been dead so long that on one even remembers the art. Back to Greeley and Krol. The first question was about the reason for celibacy. Greeley was first up. Greeley told Koppel that part of his job as a Priest was to be fascinating as representing the invisible world. I loved this answer, it delivered up a chance for Krol to display Rapier wit. The problem was Krol did not have any Rapier wit. When it was Krol's time to respond to whether it was part of his job to be fascinating. He answered "not at all". What Krol should have said was "Being a Cardinal I am way more fascinating than Father Greeley. I was disappointed. I thought of the comeback instantly. The weird thing is this memory stayed with me for decades. I realized there was more to this memory than a lost opportunity to deliver a clever ripost. Decades later I realized Greeley was right. It was part of his job to be fascinating. Before leaving Greeley, I want to say he deserves better than to be forgotten. Greeley was a college professor of sociology, and wrote many books. Some of these books were best selling novels that did not make him popular with the Church hierarchy. Father Greely claimed he never had an unpublished thought. Greeley was fascinating. This memory came back to me while I was reading the books I am reviewing in this "Fragment", and like a kaleidoscope gave me various ideas, and views.Once I realized that Greeley was right. I thought about two of my favorite modern spiritual leaders. I thought about Gurdjieff and Crowley because we do not have much of an account of ancient spiritual leaders' conversations. Both Gurdjieff and Crowley were great conversationalists.they could talk to different classes of people with ease; both could either dominate the conversation or withdraw and let people make fools of themselves. They were interesting men, they were fascinating. And both like Fr. Greeley realized it was part of the job to be fascinating. This led me to think more about the concept of being an interesting person. Interesting people are great conversationalists, and great communicators. So what is it that makes one interesting? The answer is simple: interesting people have read memorable books,and had memorable experiences. This answer surely fits for Gurdjieff,and Crowley. The next realization was our current society does not produce interesting people. The reasons are obvious. Playing video games does not give memorable experiences, and modern popular fiction does not produce memorable books. At this point I should connect this with occultism, but I am not. Instead, I shall give a hint. It has to do with building the magical mind.I am going to explore this topic in future "Fragments". This review is going to be my meditations on some popular fiction, both authors and their creations. This should become pellucid as we continue. Let me also add that when I started reading the following books I had none of this in mind. I just wanted to talk to people about books. The trouble with most modern fiction is one forgets it right after finishing the story. So I did not get the stimulating conversations I was hoping for. My criteria for the following books is that they have to be bestsellers. (I was thinking if I read bestsellers there would be a lot of people to talk to about the books. I was wrong.) I shall start with the worst first. The venerable Steven King. King has many bestsellers and is seen as an icon of modern horror fiction. I am not a big fan of King, I find him almost unreadable. I have only read one of his books from cover to cover. (The Stand) The rest I gave up on long before I reached the middle of the books. I have heard people say: that King's style is to mix the horrific with the banal. I find too much of the banal and not enough of the horrific to keep me interested. I do like some of the movies, but not the books. to get to particulars: I find his characters boring and have trouble identifying with them. I find the stories too long, and full of banal incidents. His handling of disabled characters is a disgrace. Does he do any research? Next let me move to James Pattterson who is probably the best example of what I am talking about. I have finished all the Patterson books I have started, found them well paced and no problem to read. The trouble is when I finish the book it is instantly forgotten. As I said he is the perfect author for our times; disposable fiction. He writes disposable literature that is meant to be disposable, like a razor. After reading it is forgotten like throwing out a used razor. This is why Patterson is more of a media empire than a serious author. LIke junk food his books are enjoyed and forgotten. I have read a lot of pulp fiction and I can remember Sax Rohme and Ian Flemming that I read decades ago. I have also asked people who are fans of Patterson if they can remember his novels and things about them after reading them? The answer is always "no". It seems Patterson's books are read for a bit of euphoria and then be forgotten. I noticed this after I read one of his novels, and then came across the title again in a few days, and realized I could not remember any of the book. Let me say this about Patterson's novels, they are paced well and keep your interest while you are reading them, but there is nothing challenging about them, or memorable. Patterson's books remind me of "Romance Novels". I remember when I briefly worked in a used bookstore. There were older ladies that would come looking for "Romance Novels" weekly; they read one or two of them a day. And remembered nothing about them. Since they are all the same, being memorable would be a flaw. They are not memorable books. Let us now move to Lisa Scottline. She has had many bestselling books. I find her unreadable, but this may be a flaw in me. I found it impossible to identify with her main characters. Her main characters alway seem to be female attorneys entering middle age. Something I cannot seem to get any interest in. Which might say more about me than Scottline. The flaw in all the above books is they are not memorable. One does not become interesting reading these books. But is not seen as a flaw by fans of the above authors. I have tried to have conversations about the above books, but that is not the purpose of these books. Another problem with the above books: is that fans of these books do not read much else, so there is no comparing them to other books or events. I want to look at three characters from three popular series of books. The three characters that I have chosen are Jack Reacher (Lee Child), Jeremy Logan (Linclon Child), and Aloysius Pendergast (Doug Preston & Lincoln Child). I shall refer to Lincoln Child as "Child" and Lee Child as "Lee Child''. There are several reasons I picked the above characters.The first reason is I could actually read the above books with interest. And one of the series features a psychic detective (Child) and another another series where there are strange almost occult situations. Except they are mostly built around pseudoscience. I tried to write some psychic detective stories that feature my character of Gwen Chu. I have stopped writing the stories because the character of Gwen Chu seemed to talk with me but stopped. It seems she became independent of me and now belongs to the world. The inspiration for the stories was Rohmer's psychic detective Maurice Klaw. I am not the only occultist who has tried to write in this genre. Anyone remember Crowley's detective "Simon Iff"? Let me make my first evaluation of the three series: I would not buy any of these books, but I will reserve them at the library. I shall start with the worst first going to the best. So let us begin with the Jeremy Logan books. (Child) There are only six books in this series. I have read four of them. Jeremy Logan is an art history professor. He also calls moonlights as an enigmatologist. He investigates unusual mysteries for people at a very high price. Logan is called into consult on problems that defy ordinary explanations. Sometimes there are occult elements, but most of the time the problem is caused by science which, most of the science in the books is pseudoscience. I guess that's why the books are called techno-thrillers. A good example of this is Child's novel "Full Wolf Moon". It is about a werewolf, but the werewolf is not cursed, instead he was created by pseudoscience. Jeremy Logan is not that interesting of a character. Even though he is the most realistic of the lead characters I am examining. He has mastered some eastern meditation techniques and seems to be an empath. And of course, he is exceptionally smart. We know he has a dead wife he talks to, but we never really get to know what motivates Logan. He is an opaque character. The books follow a formula. Logan is called in by some incredibly rich private institution to solve an unusual problem. He also has champagne taste; he loves the finer things in life. I did enjoy the books, but had no trouble putting it down when I had something else to do. Do not think I am going to read any others in the series. Next up is Alysius Pendergast. Pendergast is the character created by Preston and child as the hero of the very popular Pendergast series of novels. The first novel in the series (Relic) was made into a movie. The movie illustrates some of the problems with the character. The producers of the movie cut Pendergast out of the script. It does seem in the first novel that Pendergast is a superfluous character. The rest of the novels are centered around Pendergast. Pendergast is supposed to be an F.B.I. agent. Although he seems to freelance and is given wide jurisdiction by the agency. Pendergast is also supposed to be exceptionally smart and an expert in combat, both armed and unarmed. Pendergast is also exceptionally rich. Like Logan; he likes the finer things in life. Which he indulges in constantly; gourmet food, super expensive clothes, and so on. Which seems a contradiction to his exceptional physical abilities. I have never heard of an athlete that trains of faug gras, and the finest wines. We never see him working out or at the pistol range. Instead, we see him in his leisure time reading Latin literature, and listening to classical music. These do not seem like the pastimes of a supersoldier. He is also an opaque character. He is extremely secretive. And continues this in all the novels, even though it seems to constantly get him and his associates in a lot of trouble. He never learns. When one is reading the novels one wonders why the characters never check in with one another. Not even a cell phone message to say where they are or what they are doing. This is a common occurrence in the novels. The characters go off to investigate some dangerous place and never leave an email or a voice message with their associates. One wonders why Pendergast, who is supposed to be a super genius, never learns this. Pendergast is another billionaire crimefighter. He often uses his money to bribe people or buy some expensive piece of equipment. As for the evaluation of the books. I have read most of the books in the series, even though Pendergast is not a great character. LIke the Logan novels we never find out what it is that motivates Pendergast to fight crime. Again they are techno-thrillers. Most of the science in the novels is pseudoscience. There is a sort of "Dark Shadows" vibe to the novels that has kept my interest in them.Pendergast's family are all super geniuses. And most of them are evil and insane. I have read most of the novels in the series. The cast of characters has kept me reading. The novels are paced well. Although I never had trouble putting them down when I had something else to do. The stories are entertaining. I will probably read all the novels, but again they are disposable literature. The last character we are going to examine is Jack Reacher. Reacher is the brainchild of Lee Child. Reacher is the best character of the three. He is a wandering vigilante. His ancestors would be Mack Bolan of the "Executioner" series, the movie "Death Wish", and so on. Reacher travels around the country getting involved in defending people against organized crime. I do not mean the mob, but corrupt law enforcement and business. The novels are formulaic. Reacher wanders into a town and some incident, usually violent, gets him involved. Reacher is a vagabond, he only owns the clothes he is wearing, clothes that he throws away when they get dirty. He is supposed to be ex-military: a military policeman. Of course he is an expert in hand to hand combat. The latter novels get more violent, and less romance. This was the only series that I had trouble putting down. I read about half the novels. I shall probably read more, but I would not buy them. Lee Child created a memorable character even though the stories are all the same. -P.S.- I am working on some more "Fragments" that shall involve the Jesuits. If anyone wants to get a head start I recommend reading Malachai Martin's book "The Jesuits". Maybe there is a real Illuminati pulling strings behind the scenes?