This meeting was significant for Peart and once more he finds a connection with another “ghost.” This particular story of the German solider, who was a part of such a historic event, is especially powerful. Peart’s relating of this “ghost” story adds a strong dimension to his own “ghost” story. Through recounting the tragic story of the German solider, he is exemplifying how difficult and substantial his own grief is. Additionally, Peart also “searches out the ghostly footsteps of deceased writers…All greats, and all gone” (Peart 123). Once more, he is yearning to connect with something that captures the way he feels. Peart also takes pictures of his motorcycle parked on the road so it appears that it is driving without a rider or perhaps with a “ghost rider” (Peart 131). Perhaps Peart feels that even though he has been driving himself around on his motorcycle, he is not really the one guiding his own journey. The pictures he takes are metaphors for the aimlessness of his journey. Perhaps the ones dictating his journey are the numerous “ghosts” he encounters and observes along the way. Peart also visits a museum and muses over cars that have been removed from the museum. “The ghost cars,” as he calls them (Peart 132). He visits Jack London State Park and Robert Louis Stevenson State park, and notes that these men are “ghost writers” (Peart 136-140). Overall, the theme of the “ghost” was well-connected throughout Peart’s piece, adding depth and magnitude to the grief he is experiencing and the dislocation he feels from the world.
Although the theme of the “ghost” serves as a strength to Peart’s writing, there are definite literary weaknesses that cannot be ignored. His work contains stylistic and structural weaknesses. Peart experiences many moving events but his ability to capture those events and the feelings associated with them are lacking. Peart has some good ideas but he does not organize and articulate them well enough to touch the reader as he might be able to. Peart
often switches his tone abruptly and this can be a bit disconcerting. For example, he changes from a relatively conversational discourse to a philosophically worded discourse:
“Sometimes I couldn’t even figure out why I was awake, and I could never identify what might be causing this distress – rich food, meant, alcohol, or, as I asked my journal, ‘Was the abuse which caused this insult to my formerly strong constitution self-inflicted, or just the deep and constant aggravations of recent life?’ (Peart 109).
The question Peart poses at the end of the paragraph does not fit with the rest of the sentence. Another example of a structural weakness is when Peart quotes the Queen of Romania: “Sometimes the things dreamers do seem incomprehensible to others” (Peart 112). A few paragraphs later he rewords the quote to apply it to a jokester mechanic: “Sometimes the things jokers do seem incomprehensible to others” (Peart 113). The quote does not apply in the situation and even if it did, Peart does not explain it. In her quote, the Queen was referring to her lover and American monument builder Sam Hill. In his revising of the quote, Peart is referring to a mechanic. If he had explained his usage of the quote a bit more instead of simply using it, this may have been a viable connection. In addition, his use of descriptive writing is lacking in parts of the piece as well. “The night air making me think of the word ‘gentle’” (Peart 116). He could have added more layers and depth to his writing if he had explored more descriptive language. Furthermore, his use of juxtapositioning (“oblivious vanity”) is also relatively unimaginative. He chooses to define “oblivious vanity” as “vanity without dignity” and this begs the question: can any vanity be dignified? Peart does not consider this question and it makes his writing seem insubstantial and lacking profundity. Another juxoposition he uses is “lifeless humanity” (Peart 127). Again, Peart does not display very much creativity in his juxopositioning of words and his explanation of them. He admires the movie “River of No Return” because the movie serves as a “good” metaphor for
life: “life is the ‘river of no return’” (Peart 117). He uses an obvious metaphor and does not explain it or answer why and how life is the “river of no return”, therefore avoiding delving deeper into the metaphor. Overall, there are definite structural and stylistic weaknesses in Peart’s work that serve to undermine his potentially interesting and unique ideas.
In addition to the structural and stylistic weaknesses of Peart’s work, there are also weaknesses in the way he portrays himself in certain instances. For example, Peart can occasionally come across as vain and judgmental and this diminishes his credibility. He seems preoccupied at times with the appearance of people and this causes him to appear shallow. In this circumstance, he is describing the patrons at a hotel restaurant:
“The few other patrons were dressed in trailer-park chic, with a genderless array of short-long haircuts (a.k.a. ‘mullets’), baseball caps, shorts and T-shirts bursting with obesity, huge plastic-rimmed eyeglasses, and the inevitable mood-spoiler of a squalling, unkempt child” (Peart 111).
Peart reveals some of his own prejudices in the above passage. Conversely, he also recounts how he came upon a “nice-looking young family” on his journey.
“In the few seconds I spoke with them they radiated such openness, friendliness and health that it melted me inside to look at them. Such a contrast to the bovine trailer-trash the other night in Lewiston, they definitely corrected the balance of my personal scales of humanity. Certainly they “weighed” less, in several senses, but counted for more, as the good ought to do” (Peart 117).
Peart seems to be equating the outward appearance of good health with “goodness” of character, and his prejudices towards those that appear unhealthy and poor are exposed. This preoccupation with appearance continues when Peart is at a hotel restaurant further along his
journey and observes: “Amazing quantities of flab here – big guts and big butts. (And big mouths, behind me.)” (Peart 126). Peart’s stinging commentary reveals his shallowness and
judgmental nature and this does not endear him to the reader. It detracts from the strengths in his writing and does not really serve any purpose in his piece, other than to highlight Peart’s preoccupation with and judgments of those that appear unhealthy and poor. Therefore, the superficiality and prejudice of some of Peart’s observations serve as a weakness to his overall writing.
In conclusion, although it can be said that Peart’s success as a writer could be due more to his popularity as a musician than to his abilities as a writer, he nonetheless has some skill as a writer. He maintains the theme of the “ghost” in “The Loneliest Road in America” which adds a strength to his writing because it showcases his struggles with his own grief and the disconnection he feels from the world. Peart does however expose weaknesses in his writing, most notably in his style and structure, but also in the way he portrays himself. Overall, Peart’s writing is shown to have both strengths and weaknesses, as evidenced in “The Loneliest Road in America” from Ghost Rider.