Im very hesitant to review my friend Mark Steeles book, Flashbang, in an entry I wrote a month ago I gave some of my reasons. Now that Ive read it I have a few other qualms.
So was it bad?
No, it wasnt bad. In fact it was quite funny and memorable.
So why the qualmy hands?
Well, since you must know … or at least are asking the question (for whatever ulterior motives I can only guess) … my qualms are concerning some of the … how do you say? Conventions?
Conventions, you wrote it right. Get on with it already.
Stop that! Its annoying.
A dialog with yourself is annoying?
And dont do the bold … AND DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT USING ITALICS!!!
ok, me sorry.
No problem, you do bring up a good point. Flashbang is a book that has strokes of genius (both humorous and insightful) and strokes of annoyance. The preceding inner monologue is one of the annoying points.
And the…
Be gone already, you foul writing convention, into the eternal abyss of unread junk mail!!!
Okay, now that Ive exorcized that spirit, I think I need to perform a similar seance on Flashbang. And that is why Im qualmy. Mark Steele is a great writer. If my wife had been pregnant when she read it she would have peed in her pants. Fortunately Im not pregnant and I was wearing trainers. But I couldnt fully embrace and love the book because of its excesses.
It had too much unique typesetting. Too many inner monologues. Too much spiritual explanation and attempted connection. Too many concurrent stories. Too much preaching. Too much wraparound.
Too much like the stuff I write. I would start singing Im looking at the man in the mirror but I wont. Too untimely and too weird.
Personally, I wonder if he had an editor. I need an editor. Doesnt even the bible say without an editor my writers ramble?
An editor would have nixed that blatant misuse of scripture. Editors help to channel and harness the creative forces of writers, the same way producers help to corral directors, and parents correct wayward children. Without these taming forces we get artistic films, spoilt brats and unabomberesque diatribes.
Regardless whether there was an editor or not, it seemed unharnessed. It also seemed like all the typesetting ploys were on the line of nobody has done this before … so therefore we should do it!
The saddest remark about this is that Marks style and humor doesnt need all the ploys. My favorite books growing up were by Patrick F. McManus. He had no ploys but I … well, I didnt have any trainers handy so I just changed clothes a lot… my parents thought I had OCD… anyway. Marks writing has many similarities and I believe that as Mark grows more confidant in his substance hell lean less on the ploys. But that is a freshman folly.
Speaking of substance. The book reminded me of a SNL sketch movie. You know the ones that are hilarious for the first 2/3rds of the film but then get stuck in some moral redemption / sappy sentimentality at the end. Im all for the moral and trying to teach something positive, but the best films are the ones that remain consistent all the way. The best example of a consistent film would be Liar, Liar and Tommy Boy that were just as funny at the end as they were in the first half.
Mark seems to always want to justify his humor with a spiritual lesson. My guess is that this is a natural response to his being a comedian and a spiritual leader. Not normally things that coexist and when they do the latter always takes over. Irregardless, the first 2/3rds of the book are hilarious, despite the slight bogging down in the last third when Mark tries to tie everything back together and provide spiritual lessons (maybe a mandate from his publisher – but Im only guessing).
I would love to read his next book where he just lets loose the former and lets the Holy Spirit bring to the reader the lessons He wants to impart. Sure Mark can foreshadow potential lessons and hint, but when he spells it out for us it cheapens and diminishes all the potential insights.
Now, this may seem like a negative review… and in many ways it has been. So let me try to even the scales (because I really did enjoy the book and encourage you to read it) with the following spoiler. The book is all about making teeth marks (permanent impressions for the good) on people and not being a flashbang (a temporary explosion that feels real and looks real but lacks any impact). The anecdotes he uses are great and did cause me to really consider the way I was living my own life and what I was trying to accomplish.
The ironic thing is that Flashbang was quite insightful and made me think about effort versus effective… that is until it started to tell me how to think about it. When it explained it all to me it lost me.
So much of my teaching career has been flashbangish. The kids like me but I dont know how much of an impact Im really leaving. This past year I began to transition to leaving marks (note to CPS: Im using metaphorical language here) when I stopped all of my effort and relied more on God to make me effective. I still work, but its less about all IM doing, and more about what God wants me to do. Its still a process (Im far from over myself) but one that was helped along by reading Flashbang (despite its typesetting flaws). I could try to explain what I mean by the last three sentences but Id lose myself.
In conclusion, the only review that this book really needs is whether or not it changes and makes an impact on the lives of those who read it. If it leaves teeth marks then it is worth every dollar you spend on adult sized Depends.
Are you speaking from experience?
No comment. Besides I promised myself I wouldnt do a wraparound.
Speak Your Mind