There’s a nice flow with the words in this book and the manner of how Sanders expresses himself. He is a writer. But what then is a writer? As a writing professor at a University, Sanders has a point of view.
There’s the craft side of writing. Good English, non-cliche writing, treating words and expressions somewhat as a poet might, engaging readers with a good story as an entertainer might. Alternatively, the craft of writing also tells us what a good writer avoids: e.g. fancy words the intent of which is to “dazzle your reader” with “verbal hot dogging.” Sanders admits that he tended toward these writing pitfalls early on, as an “aspiring writer” before settling down with a more natural and comfortable style that this book exhibits, but he’s critical of what he sees coming out of the university writing programs these days. Sanders quotes one observer to say that there’s a distinction between competence and vision when it comes to writing, and writing schools these days lack the latter. Sanders quotes another to say of contemporary fiction, “‘in the Detroits of our culture, the manufacturer of writers continues.’” Of poetry, another observer comments: “‘I detest the clever verse disguised as poetry that emanates so frequently from the academic poetry factories….’” And Donald Hall, Sanders says, “Likens writing classes to sweatshops, assembly lines, and fast food franchises….mass producing bland verse, which Hall refers to, unlovingly, as McPoems….and modish fiction and poetry [that] will be featured in next year’s Salvation Army book sale.”
Picking up on the lack of “vision” theme, I sense a good amount of writing these days seems infected with “good writing,” as if writing well is more important than the substance of what is conveyed, to the point that writing feels like manipulation. A related issue is that being a writer seems to be the goal, rather than having something important to say, with writing being the vehicle for expressing it. Is there a problem with the “aspiring writer” concept, as if the goal is to write, but not necessarily because one has something worthy to say? When Sanders started early on, he seemed to fall into that trap, fretting about the lack of recognition about what he was putting out there, to the point that he contemplated suicide, adding, oddly, “who hasn’t?” Isn’t that falling into the trap of catering to popular demand, where one is dependent on their validation? If a writer has something important to say, expressing it should be its own reward, not the lack of attention it gets.
As he settled into maturity, Sanders moved toward the substance of writing - of what was to be conveyed and here I had a mixed reaction. Sanders got a lot of questions about his choice to settle down on his home turf in the Midwest (Indiana), as this was far from the coastal “writing centers” and the Midwest was perceived to be infected with parochialism and hicks. Sanders is good about sticking up for his Midwest roots and the value of being rooted in a place. This is one of his intended meanings about writing from the center (the title of this book). There’s a lot of solid Midwestern values and common sense that come out of this book.
Even so, there’s a troubling understory in this book that is problematic. Sanders’ focus is his concern about the Earth and how shabbily we treat it. There’s nothing new here. It’s been said many times by many before. While Sanders echoes his concern, his various “we must” dicta quickly gets tiring, as if venting is enough. There’s nothing easier than to sit on the sideline, as a writer, and proclaim what ought to be done. This is mostly a preaching to the choir type of thing without any sense about how difficult it is in a democracy for elected leaders who care to actually move the needle even slightly in the right direction because they must deal with voters who care about nothing much more than the here and now.
So there’s that, but there’s the even more troubling aspect to Sanders’ writing in that he says his job as a writer is to unearth universal truths and share them with the world. The goal of a writer is “to come fully awake.” Writing for him is a “spiritual practice” and “our job is to open the jar, or let it be opened, so that a greater reality may come streaming in.” What that reality entails is that we come from a “transcendent source” as the ground of our being, acknowledging “the presence of more-than-personal meaning and power.” This is the other intended meaning of Sanders’ writing from the center. “Find your way to that ultimate ground, root your way there, and you will have something worth saying.” If the mystics are right, and Sanders thinks they are, “we can have no more important task than to seek the center. Here is the honey, here is the slippery essence that eludes all language.”
While Sanders is overt in letting his readers know where he’s coming from, that perspective is troubling for those who are not in the same place. Perhaps the clue comes from his story about living in the dorm in college where he makes a point of putting up a poster of the periodic table, “as a counterpoint of sorts to the pin-ups beside my roommate's bed.” There is a holier-than-thou tinge to the way he tells this story, as if he has the Truth and others do not.