Because there can't be too much Dan Brown bashing [Archive]

EeneyMinnieMoe

20th September 2009, 11:26 PM

There isn't enough Dan Brown bashing!

His writing is so pedestrian, it gives pedestrian writing a bad name! It gives bad novels a bad name!

Such potboilers. So badly written. So ludicrous. So self-serious. The style- just unbearable. Such...phony cleverness. Danielle Steel would be ashamed. A high school English teacher would flunk some passages if they appeared in a paper. Agatha Christie would be appalled.

A.O.Scott's review of Brown's writing was priceless:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/movies/15ange.html

Since “Angels & Demons” (http://movies.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=381322&inline=nyt_ttl) takes place mainly in the Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org), and is festooned with the rites and ornaments of Roman Catholicism, I might as well begin with a confession. I have not read the novel by Dan Brown (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brown/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on which this film (directed, like its predecessor, “The Da Vinci Code,” (http://movies.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=309461&inline=nyt_ttl) by Ron Howard (http://movies.nytimes.com/person/306311/Ron-Howard?inline=nyt-per)) is based. I have come to believe that to do so would be a sin against my faith, not in the Church of Rome but in the English language, a noble and beleaguered institution against which Mr. Brown practices vile and unspeakable blasphemy.

lionking

20th September 2009, 11:28 PM

He does, though, give encouragement to budding authors everywhere - "hey I can write like that".

But IMO Matthew Reilly, who has sold books by the millions, make Dan Brown look like Steinbeck.

athon

21st September 2009, 12:05 AM

He does, though, give encouragement to budding authors everywhere - "hey I can write like that".

But IMO Matthew Reilly, who has sold books by the millions, make Dan Brown look like Steinbeck.

Haha. I just made a similar comparison to a friend not thirty seconds ago. Not sure I agree that he makes Brown look better, to be honest. I think they're both just as bad.

Seriously, though, I do wonder what it is that grates on me so much. I mean, ok, fine, they are poor writers. Big deal, right?

But when I read something like, '...the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.', I immediately think back to when I've made similar writing errors and cringe at the inconsistency. Yes, I've made the same mistakes. But I'm aware of the fact they are fundamental errors in narration. A colleague of mine who happens to be an editor (and enjoy DB books) says it's the editor who should catch them. And she has a point. If they were occasional, I would probably even blame the editor instead.

But the books are littered with such examples, as well as a range of other bad devices.

So, why does this bug me? I think it is because it says the details aren't important. I read that above example and thought 'so which is it - is it a silhouette, or can you see his eyes?'. It detracts from the scene, and makes me think the author himself was less interested in the imagery and the mood, and more interested in sounding like a cliche, or appearing clever. Yet it means the author, the editor, and the market also find such details trivial and unimportant. It means every student I've encouraged to be proud of their efforts in writing, to consider the meaning of their words, to be particular in their choice of language I've given the wrong advice - I should have just said 'make it up, because nobody really pays attention anyway.'

Yet ultimately what offends me most is the same thing that offends me when it comes to a lack of critical thinking amongst people.

To me, words matter. For us to think critically, we need to share information as faithfully as possible. We can't just make it up. We can't paint images with words that just sound pretty - we need to select words that will convey meaning as we intend it. An acclaimed writer should be what society holds in the highest respect when it comes to wordsmithing. Sadly, Dan Brown is that person.

Is it laziness of a population who couldn't care to think, who just want an easy read regardless of whether the words make sense or the author has considered how to weave the information into the narrative? Is it a symptom of people's need to sympathise with the deficits of an artist, forgiving mistakes because they feel they can't do any better?

It would be different if he was a poet whose style was to use the wrong words intentionally, or wrote prose that played on the infodumping style as a parody or social commentary. I'd have less of a problem.

Maybe I'm just an elitist writer who is trying to justify a gut reaction with something more reasonable. :(

Athon

lionking

21st September 2009, 12:20 AM

Athon, do you seriously expect that books wouldn't have gone down the same dumbing down highway as TV?

EeneyMinnieMoe

21st September 2009, 12:22 AM

Yet ultimately what offends me most is the same thing that offends me when it comes to a lack of critical thinking amongst people.

To me, words matter. For us to think critically, we need to share information as faithfully as possible. We can't just make it up. We can't paint images with words that just sound pretty - we need to select words that will convey meaning as we intend it. An acclaimed writer should be what society holds in the highest respect when it comes to wordsmithing. Sadly, Dan Brown is that person.

I feel your pain. That Dan Brown writes for anything beyond Geek Monthly is a global travesty. Agatha Christie and Mario Puzo wouldn't be caught dead with some of the sentences. There are better writers on this forum. Heck, there are better writers in 8th grade Language Arts class.

However, think of this. Fifteen years from now, Dan Brown will be entirely forgotten. Trash, however big at the time, is ephemeral and great art is immortal.

Well, not always. There is some trash that seems destined to live forever. Guess even trash can strike a universal chord.

athon

21st September 2009, 12:38 AM

Athon, do you seriously expect that books wouldn't have gone down the same dumbing down highway as TV?

Yeah, it does seem a little naive I guess.

Maybe I've held onto the hope that because reading takes more effort than watching television, it wouldn't suffer the same fate. People seem to be happy that 'at least Dan Brown's getting people to read'. But it's like saying because McDonalds is being renovated with faux-wood paneling and fancy new menus, it's a good thing as it gets people out enjoying fine dining again.

Sure, people reading books is a good thing...so long as it is because it shows they are gaining an appreciation of the written word. Otherwise, why should I be happy about masses of semi-literates thinking a good novel should have passages like, 'He was sitting all alone in the enormous cabin of a Falcon 2000EX corporate jet as it bounced its way through turbulence. In the background, the dual Pratt & Whitney engines hummed evenly.'?

Athon

Lucian

21st September 2009, 12:42 AM

I read The Da Vinci Code a few years ago, and since then I have been trying to blot it from memory. Sadly, I have been unable to forget that he described some object as being "shaped like a cruciform." No, Dan, either it's cruciform or it's shaped like a cross. I know it's a minor detail, but shouldn't professional writers understand how words work?

EeneyMinnieMoe

21st September 2009, 12:47 AM

athon

21st September 2009, 01:01 AM

Athon- that's how you discover art. By going through junk first. You have a starting point and you need that starting point before going on to other things and then other things and then other things. At least people know the joys of reading through DB and might be later prompted to seek out better things. Better things that will make them realize how bad the first thing was.

You have a point there.

I read David Eddings when I was about 11. I loved it. Thought it was great. I read Dragonlance around then as well, and also thought it was the best read.

I tried again on both accounts years later, just to bring back the memories. I was horrified at just how awful they were. How could I have loved them so much once upon a time?

Over time, I grew to recognise cliches. I came to see dimensionality in characters, and to appreciate that good writing is sneaky - you're not beaten over the head with descriptions, but find yourself immersed in a world where you find yourself sympathising with the character's perceptions with no conscious effort.

Now, those books were bad...but I only came to recognise that as I read more. As with pulp romance, the cliche and infodumping was almost a part of the formula. It hardly forgives them for being poorly written, but I don't see Tom Hanks playing Tasselhoff Burrfoot in a Hollywood blockbuster.

No, Dan, either it's cruciform or it's shaped like a cross. I know it's a minor detail, but shouldn't professional writers understand how words work?

See, that's pretty much my thought.

It's the mass's way of saying 'we don't care if he doesn't know the meaning of words, or if he feels obliged to make us swim through an encyclopedia of descriptions for his own academic gratification, or if he is inconsistent - we just like his story!'.

But here's the thing - the stories themselves aren't all that clever, or interesting. They're simple, true, but in my time I've read far more gripping tales that are written well and are very straight forward, yet never got so much as a review in the local rag. I'm simply curious to know how the hype wave started. Good publicists? The 'shocking' controversy? What was it? Given the variety of damn good, simple, well-written, easy to read (and let's face it - how the hell can paragraph's of pointless information describing the make and model of a friggin' plane that has nothing to do with the narrative really make it 'easier' to read?) books I've come across in my life time, it simply can't be that this popularity wave started because a bunch of people thought Dan Brown was good!

Man...if only I knew.

Athon

lionking

21st September 2009, 01:04 AM

You know what? For all of the truth in the posts here, I'll probably read it. Sometimes you eat at first class restuarants, sometimes you have fish and chips.

athon

21st September 2009, 01:15 AM

You know what? For all of the truth in the posts here, I'll probably read it. Sometimes you eat at first class restuarants, sometimes you have fish and chips.

I did read it. So I can't say 'no, don't'. I picked up my stepfather's copy, in spite of suspecting it would be awful. And I did read it all. It hurt, but I persisted, mostly just to face the ending.

I read it for the same reason most people do - because somebody else read it and said they liked it, and there appeared to be a widespread appreciation of it. Like most people, I wanted to know what the fuss was about.

So, I don't blame people for reading it, to be honest. Hype waves are like that. I also read Harry Potter for the same reason.

Athon

pmckean

21st September 2009, 01:23 AM

Plus one for Matthew Reilly. Appalling.

Does anyone think that James Patterson is a terrible writer? His detective mysteries are normally wrapped up by zero detection and a great deal of luck or coincidence. His writing just grates on me - although he's not as bad as Reilly.

Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child, anyone? Yuck.

Anyway, I read all of Dan Brown's novels before Da Vinci code made it big - and let's not forget that it was word of mouth that turned Brown into a global publishing phenomenon. I enjoyed his novels greatly, forgave them their sins against language and recommended them to others.

I can appreciate great writing, but I also love a good page turner. The two aren't always mutually exclusive (try Michael Connelly), but Brown definitely gets me turnin' those pages without being as obviously bad a writer as Reilly/Patterson et al.

I do think criticism of Brown's writing has become a new meme.

ddt

21st September 2009, 03:20 AM

First, I have to admit I'm not much of a fiction reader. But Dan Brown would never, ever, make it to my short list for two other reasons than his prose style.

1) He claims that most of the CT in his novels is true, while in fact it is not. From an accompanying Telegraph article:
They are works of fiction, but Brown tells us they are based on fact: "All organisations in this novel exist,” says a foreword to The Last Symbol, "including the Freemasons, the Invisible College, the Office of Security, the SMSC, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences”. Similarly, at the beginning of The Da Vinci Code, we learn that The Priory of Sion is a real secret society founded in 1099.
Fail one. I wouldn't even mind a CT if it makes for a good story, however, don't tell me it actually exists.

2) He doesn't even bother to get his basic facts right. See, e.g., this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code#France). Versailles to the NW of Paris? Getting the locations and destinations of the Paris railway stations wrong. Couldn't he miss the 10 bucks to buy a decent map of Paris. Paris founded by the Merovingians - he never heard of Lutetia?

If the writer apparently can't be bothered with such basic fact checking, why should I bother to buy and read his novels? Errors of this kind would irritate me to no end while reading. And I do have a good (paper) map of Paris at arm's reach to check the locations. :rolleyes:

HarryKeogh

21st September 2009, 03:35 AM

You know what? For all of the truth in the posts here, I'll probably read it. Sometimes you eat at first class restuarants, sometimes you have fish and chips.

I'll probably read Dan Brown's latest for the same reason I read The DaVinci Code. Everyone else read it and I came across a free copy.

I picked up a friend's copy of TDC and wound up reading it in a weekend. Why? Each chapter is 3 pages long and ends in a cliffhanger. And I constantly said to myself "this is so ridiculous...but let's see what happens next". Yeah, it's not literature, it's actually quite silly, but it was fun the same way the last Die Hard picture was.

Yeah, sometimes you have fish and chips and enjoy it (but feel guilty afterwards).

lionking

21st September 2009, 03:48 AM

I'll probably read Dan Brown's latest for the same reason I read The DaVinci Code. Everyone else read it and I came across a free copy.

I picked up a friend's copy of TDC and wound up reading it in a weekend. Why? Each chapter is 3 pages long and ends in a cliffhanger. And I constantly said to myself "this is so ridiculous...but let's see what happens next". Yeah, it's not literature, it's actually quite silly, but it was fun the same way the last Die Hard picture was.

Yeah, sometimes you have fish and chips and enjoy it (but feel guilty afterwards).
I think that I read the Da Vinci Code quicker than any other book. I even ignored sports on TV.

athon

21st September 2009, 04:05 AM

I picked up a friend's copy of TDC and wound up reading it in a weekend. Why? Each chapter is 3 pages long and ends in a cliffhanger.

Yup. It's kind of novel writing 101 (addictive computer games work on a similar principle) - short, snappy chapters that end in such a way that make you curious to know what comes next.

Athon

pmckean

21st September 2009, 04:17 AM

"I picked up a friend's copy of TDC and wound up reading it in a weekend. Why? Each chapter is 3 pages long and ends in a cliffhanger. And I constantly said to myself "this is so ridiculous...but let's see what happens next".

Exactly right. There's a technique there that keeps you reading. Short chapters, lots of suspense. JJ Abrams, master of cliffhangers, talks about his love of the mysterious unknown in this link:

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/07/abramsbox/

athon

21st September 2009, 04:49 AM

Exactly right. There's a technique there that keeps you reading. Short chapters, lots of suspense.

Here's where I disagree - there is curiosity, but I would hesitate to state it goes as far as suspense, at least in my case.

Suspense (IMO) requires you to care about the characters. You've engaged with the narrative and are drawn into the plot, having a personal stake in the outcome.

In the case of Dan Brown, I found myself getting to the end of the chapter and possessing a curiosity in how he was going to resolve a situation. I didn't even find his resolutions all that clever. However, by the time I'd read it and saw I only had another page or two left of the chapter, I'd keep reading. Easy to digest, and provokes you into wanting to know how a scene will resolve, but hardly 'suspenseful'.

Athon

Dr. Tobias Fünke

21st September 2009, 05:16 AM

I strongly recommend "Digital Fortress" :D.

There's no limit to what Brown can fail at.

timhau

21st September 2009, 05:25 AM

Such potboilers. So badly written. So ludicrous. So self-serious. The style- just unbearable. Such...phony cleverness.

You hit a home run there. I've wondered for a long time how to describe the feature that most irks me in Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, but phony cleverness captures it perfectly.

timhau

21st September 2009, 05:27 AM

But IMO Matthew Reilly, who has sold books by the millions, make Dan Brown look like Steinbeck.

Oh, you've run into Mr. CrapGenerator too. If there's something below Reilly (other than illiteracy), I don't want to know about it.

dtugg

21st September 2009, 05:39 AM

1) He claims that most of the CT in his novels is true, while in fact it is not. From an accompanying Telegraph article:

Fail one. I wouldn't even mind a CT if it makes for a good story, however, don't tell me it actually exists.

To be fair to Dan Brown, he doesn't say that the CTs are true. Just that the organizations in his stories exist and they do.

I'm a little embarrassed to say that I have read all of his books.

Digital Fortress - sucked
Angels and Demons - I liked this one the best
Deception Point - pretty good
The Da Vinci Code - ok
The Lost Symbol - sucked, especially the ending

His prose style can be pretty annoying but he has a way of keeping you wondering what's going to happen enough to keep reading. I think I read all of his books in a day or two.

timhau

21st September 2009, 05:40 AM

But when I read something like, '...the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.', I immediately think back to when I've made similar writing errors and cringe at the inconsistency. Yes, I've made the same mistakes. But I'm aware of the fact they are fundamental errors in narration.

Exactly. They'd be OK in a rough draft. Apparently never spotted by Mr. Brown; combined with the fact that he does errors like that literally all the time leads me to conclude that he's got the stylistic sense of a mudbrick.

HarryKeogh

21st September 2009, 06:09 AM

Exactly. They'd be OK in a rough draft. Apparently never spotted by Mr. Brown; combined with the fact that he does errors like that literally all the time leads me to conclude that he's got the stylistic sense of a mudbrick.

Hey! Did Dan Brown write that sentence?!

timhau

21st September 2009, 06:22 AM

Hey! Did Dan Brown write that sentence?!

Hey, I'm a non-native speaker on teh interweb. I can do that.

ddt

21st September 2009, 06:27 AM

To be fair to Dan Brown, he doesn't say that the CTs are true. Just that the organizations in his stories exist and they do.

First: I forgot a link to the Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6198574/The-Last-Symbol-author-Dan-Browns-conspiracy-theories-six-of-the-best.html) I mentioned - it is linked to in the head of the Telegraph article from the OP.

He claimed in the preface to the Da Vinci code that the Priory of Sion was a real secret society, founded in 1099. The truth is that it is was a hoax set up by a Frenchman Pierre Plantard in the 1950s, and that it only existed in the imagination and the documents made up by Plantard.

So, fail on both the founding date and on the "real society" thing.

His claims about Opus Dei and the Illuminati are also way besides the truth.

I can't care less if he might be right with his newest novel, then. I'll just wait for a wiki article listing its inaccuracies. ;)

davidhorman

21st September 2009, 06:50 AM

I've read one Dan Brown novel, and that was Deception Point. I've also read one Tom Clancy novel, Hidden Agendas (I think), and the former was far better (though hardly great itself) than the latter.

Now we all know not to expect too much in the way of accurate portrayal of computer systems in films, and unfortunately Mr Clancy seemed to be writing this with adaptation in mind. In order to recover an incriminating email, one of the agents decides the best way would be to enter a VR of the Old West and rifle through a post master's office.

There's a scene where the henchman, a cardboard cut-out gay-hating Nazi, goes to the gym and pumps iron while two other similarly muscled (and possibly greased) gym-goers compliment him on his abs and lats. (Insert Family Guy cutaway on repressed sexuality here).

And then there was the subplot ("sub" in the sense of "has absolutely no connection to anything else in the novel at all") where a boy finds redemption and a connection to his absentee hero father by... buying a boomerang.

At least with the Dan Brown I didn't feel I'd utterly wasted the time I'd spent reading it (but if I was a slower reader, I would have).

David

dtugg

21st September 2009, 06:56 AM

First: I forgot a link to the Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6198574/The-Last-Symbol-author-Dan-Browns-conspiracy-theories-six-of-the-best.html) I mentioned - it is linked to in the head of the Telegraph article from the OP.

He claimed in the preface to the Da Vinci code that the Priory of Sion was a real secret society, founded in 1099. The truth is that it is was a hoax set up by a Frenchman Pierre Plantard in the 1950s, and that it only existed in the imagination and the documents made up by Plantard.

So, fail on both the founding date and on the "real society" thing.

His claims about Opus Dei and the Illuminati are also way besides the truth.

I can't care less if he might be right with his newest novel, then. I'll just wait for a wiki article listing its inaccuracies. ;)

OK. I had forgot that the Priory of Sion was a hoax.

ETA: The link you gave says that in Brown's lastest book, he claims that the Freemasons secretly run America. He doesn't.

bjornart

21st September 2009, 07:14 AM

I read the Da Vinci Code only to be able to truly enjoy the Norwegian parody "Madonna-gåten", the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(Edvard_Munch))Madonna riddle, and I'm not planning on reading anything else he's written, but he comes nowhere near truly horrible writing.

This summer I read "Shock wave" by Clive Cussler, a book so bad I threw it in the recycler after reading.

timhau

21st September 2009, 07:22 AM

The Da Vinci Code - ok
The Lost Symbol - sucked, especially the ending

The Lost Symbol has a worse ending than The Da Vinci Code? :eye-poppi

dtugg

21st September 2009, 07:25 AM

The Lost Symbol has a worse ending than The Da Vinci Code? :eye-poppi

Much worse. Do you want me to tell you what it is?

timhau

21st September 2009, 07:27 AM

Not just worse, but much worse? That is an achievement. Please don't spoil it, this I have to see myself.

fuelair

21st September 2009, 07:29 AM

Haha. I just made a similar comparison to a friend not thirty seconds ago. Not sure I agree that he makes Brown look better, to be honest. I think they're both just as bad.

Seriously, though, I do wonder what it is that grates on me so much. I mean, ok, fine, they are poor writers. Big deal, right?

But when I read something like, '...the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.', I immediately think back to when I've made similar writing errors and cringe at the inconsistency. Yes, I've made the same mistakes. But I'm aware of the fact they are fundamental errors in narration. A colleague of mine who happens to be an editor (and enjoy DB books) says it's the editor who should catch them. And she has a point. If they were occasional, I would probably even blame the editor instead.

But the books are littered with such examples, as well as a range of other bad devices.

So, why does this bug me? I think it is because it says the details aren't important. I read that above example and thought 'so which is it - is it a silhouette, or can you see his eyes?'. It detracts from the scene, and makes me think the author himself was less interested in the imagery and the mood, and more interested in sounding like a cliche, or appearing clever. Yet it means the author, the editor, and the market also find such details trivial and unimportant. It means every student I've encouraged to be proud of their efforts in writing, to consider the meaning of their words, to be particular in their choice of language I've given the wrong advice - I should have just said 'make it up, because nobody really pays attention anyway.'

Yet ultimately what offends me most is the same thing that offends me when it comes to a lack of critical thinking amongst people.

To me, words matter. For us to think critically, we need to share information as faithfully as possible. We can't just make it up. We can't paint images with words that just sound pretty - we need to select words that will convey meaning as we intend it. An acclaimed writer should be what society holds in the highest respect when it comes to wordsmithing. Sadly, Dan Brown is that person.

Is it laziness of a population who couldn't care to think, who just want an easy read regardless of whether the words make sense or the author has considered how to weave the information into the narrative? Is it a symptom of people's need to sympathise with the deficits of an artist, forgiving mistakes because they feel they can't do any better?

It would be different if he was a poet whose style was to use the wrong words intentionally, or wrote prose that played on the infodumping style as a parody or social commentary. I'd have less of a problem.

Maybe I'm just an elitist writer who is trying to justify a gut reaction with something more reasonable. :(

Athon

It's terminal Bulwer-Lyttonitis.

dtugg

21st September 2009, 07:32 AM

Let's just say that I am glad I didn't pay for it.

Chaos

21st September 2009, 11:39 AM

Guys, I agree that Matthew Reilly isn´t exactly Shakespeare, but you have to give him a little bit of credit for not pretending to write the world´s best, most carefully researched mystery novels. I´ve only read one of Reilly´s novels, Scarecrow, but at least that one was good, brainless fun... sort of like a James Bond movie in novel form.

patchbunny

21st September 2009, 12:37 PM

I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again. Dan Brown writes in the tradition of Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys. His style has all the feel of that juvenile literature. I can't go knocking it for the bad writing, as I'm such a JK Rowlings fan and Frith knows the Harry Potter series isn't that great, but at least Potter is marketed for what it is - kid's literature. Dan Brown needs to either move his stuff to the Young Adult section or get a better editor.

Simon39759

21st September 2009, 12:57 PM

Can you spoil the ending for me?
I have no intention of buying any more of Dan Brown's books.

Just put it in Spoiler tags... :p

What first got me was the big cop Bezu (what kind of first name is that) wearing a crucifix on the job.
That's have gotten him fired, separation of church and state and all that.

Big Les

21st September 2009, 01:18 PM

You know what? For all of the truth in the posts here, I'll probably read it. Sometimes you eat at first class restuarants, sometimes you have fish and chips.

Ah, but there ARE first class fish and chip restaurants (http://www.magpiecafe.co.uk/). By analogy, this (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/05/e-coli-chip-shop-szero-star-rating-115875-21573827/) would be Dan Brown's chippy.

Retrograde

21st September 2009, 01:23 PM

Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child, anyone? Yuck.

I liked the older ones. The last few have gotten somewhat woowoo-ye and, dare I say it, Dan Brownish. At least their writing style doesn't actually cause pain.

I sort of read A&D and DVC - I listened to the audiobooks while doing tasks that required some attention but not a lot. Still didn't keep me from yelling at the heroine in DVC: "Gee, the answer to this difficult puzzle concocted by my grandfather who doted on me is a word that means 'wisdom': what could it be?" "It's your name, you ninny!"

When the library gets the audiobook of the latest I'll probably borrow it: I'll need something to listen to when I clean the garage.

timhau

21st September 2009, 01:36 PM

I´ve only read one of Reilly´s novels, Scarecrow, but at least that one was good, brainless fun... sort of like a James Bond movie in novel form.

I've read one too, and while I can't recall the name of the piece right now, I can tell you it wasn't good and it wasn't fun, but it certainly was brainless.

BobTheDonkey

21st September 2009, 01:55 PM

Just a fly-by posting here as I cannot proclaim to be a literary genius...

I haven't read any of Dan Brown's books, just the quotes in the OP's linked article hurt...a lot... I'm going to go rest my brain for awhile.

BobTheDonkey

21st September 2009, 01:57 PM

When the library gets the audiobook of the latest I'll probably borrow it: I'll need something to listen to when I clean the garage.

May I recommend this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_broadcasting)? You're almost certain to get more enjoyment out of listening to it... :D

EeneyMinnieMoe

21st September 2009, 03:13 PM

Another thing- complaining about factual errors and ludicrous "information" about religion, science, history, art, linguistics and politics in a Dan Brown novel kind of seems like complaining that the sky is blue and the grass is green but there is one plot hole in Angels and Demons that is big enough to drive a truck through and shows amazing ignorance of religion.

The pope is revealed to have bypassed his vows of chastity and to have had a biological son through artificial insemination. Hello? CATHOLICS AREN'T ALLOWED TO CONCEIVE CHILDREN THROUGH AI!! THE VATICAN BANS IT!! IT ISN'T ALLOWED- NOT FOR PRIESTS, NOT FOR POPES, NOT FOR REGULAR JOES!! Not for single people, not for married people, not for two parents, not for one parent, not for straight people, not for gay people. For no one. I've heard of Catholics doing it and their priests condoning it as long as sperm was taken through needles and it was between a husband and a wife, yes, but even that was frowned upon 30-40 years ago, when the fictional pope of the AaD universe would have undergone it.

Skeptic Guy

22nd September 2009, 08:34 AM

BobTheDonkey

22nd September 2009, 08:39 AM

Old fashioned way...immaculate conception?

Vortigern99

22nd September 2009, 10:59 AM

I have no problem with Brown's poor writing skills, nor with millions of people being entranced by same. Since the invention of the printing press, there has always been a place for smutty, ill-conceived potboilers, and there always will be. Caveat emptor, say I.

I would have no problem with Brown's absurd fictionalization of historical personages and events, nor with his continuous stream of factual errors and blatant falsehoods... if there were not an entire page, at the front of each of his smutty, ill-conceived potboilers, devoted to the proclomation that [paraphrasing] the work to follow is based on accurate historical information and verifiable fact.

This declaration is patently false, and it irks me that Brown has duped thousands, or even millions, of readers into accepting his baloney claims as real and legitimate.

Skeptic Guy

22nd September 2009, 12:37 PM

Old fashioned way...immaculate conception?

:)

ddt

22nd September 2009, 01:10 PM

if there were not an entire page, at the front of each of his smutty, ill-conceived potboilers, devoted to the proclomation that [paraphrasing] the work to follow is based on accurate historical information and verifiable fact.

This declaration is patently false, and it irks me that Brown has duped thousands, or even millions, of readers into accepting his baloney claims as real and legitimate.

It surprises me that as of yet, no one has yet taken him to court over this. Methinks several institutions (e.g., the RC church) have enough grounds for a defamation suit. And the buyers, on the other hand, may feel duped by this.

dudalb

22nd September 2009, 02:44 PM

I can't stand Brown's trying to have it both ways: On the one hand he claims that the historical background and information in his novels are accurate and based on sound research; but when he gets called on the phoniness of his concepts, he falls back on "it's only fiction".

Vortigern99

22nd September 2009, 02:53 PM

Well, conspiratorial claims about the supposedly sinister origins of the Catholic church, Jesus' love child with Mary Magdalene, etc. can't be proven one way or the other, so none of these kinds of claims are legally actionable as far as I know.

Brown gets wrong any number of historical details about Constantine the Great, the writings of the Gnostic texts, the Priory of Sion hoax, the Inquisition, the witch trials of the late Middle Ages, etc. etc. etc. -- none of which mistakes could be considered slanderous, since they're just stupid errors made by a writer who simply did not do his research.

What irks me especially, as a student of art history, are the artistic errors of fact: the materials of which the Mona Lisa is comprised, the size of the picture plane, the identities of the personages pictured in the Last Supper and other paintings. All of this stuff is easily verifiable in art history books, and getting it right should have been a simple matter for an author married to an art history teacher!

StanBearclaw

22nd September 2009, 09:36 PM

lionking

22nd September 2009, 09:38 PM

arthwollipot

22nd September 2009, 09:52 PM

EeneyMinnieMoe

22nd September 2009, 09:58 PM

But there have been Popes that have fathered children the good old fashion way. However, that's conveniently overlooked by the Bill Donohues of the world and shouldn't necessarily make Mr. Brown's plot point any less believable.

Yes, I know there were Popes with illegitimate children. And prior to the Counter Reformation, Catholic priests were almost all legally married contrary to their vows and had children. However, Mr. Brown seems to believe that a priest is allowed to keep his vows of celibacy and still realize a dream of fathering a child through IVF. This is completely incorrect- no Catholics are allowed to conceive children unnaturally.

athon

22nd September 2009, 10:13 PM

I admit to having enjoyed Brown's books. Sure, they're not exactly great literature, but they're good enough to pass the time.

That seems to be the most common response I get.

'They're not great, but it did the job of alleviating my boredom for a few minutes.'

So how is it that a poorly written, cliched book that you have to excuse the inconsistencies, bad research and gratuitous encyclopedic masturbation that peppers it to make it through gains such immense popularity, while other books that are written better, are far better researched and have decent plot lines barely make it onto the top one hundred lists? Especially when so few people say how great the books are, stating they only read it because, well, it was there and they had time to kill?

I think that's what strikes me as, well, unfair. Yeah, yeah, I know, life isn't meant to be fair, blah blah. :p

Athon

Tsukasa Buddha

22nd September 2009, 10:23 PM

I don't know much about prose or why sentences are bad.

My biggest problem is that he can't write at all. Each book is the same. It isn't suspenseful when you know that the main two will hook up, and the real bad guy was the one friend they never suspected at all. I kept reading his books just to test my theory, and I was right each time.

The pseudo-real factoids are like Star Trek TNG tech talk. They exist merely to smooth things along the contrived path.

As such, I get neither emotional suspense nor intellectual stimulation. His books are completely useless.

EeneyMinnieMoe

22nd September 2009, 10:27 PM

That seems to be the most common response I get.

'They're not great, but it did the job of alleviating my boredom for a few minutes.'

So how is it that a poorly written, cliched book that you have to excuse the inconsistencies, bad research and gratuitous encyclopedic masturbation that peppers it to make it through gains such immense popularity, while other books that are written better, are far better researched and have decent plot lines barely make it onto the top one hundred lists? Especially when so few people say how great the books are, stating they only read it because, well, it was there and they had time to kill?

I think that's what strikes me as, well, unfair. Yeah, yeah, I know, life isn't meant to be fair, blah blah. :p

Athon

I know what you mean. There isn't an author less deserving than Brown. That's not hyperbole or being glib, that's the truth. There are so many writers in the world who are struggling to make it and have to beg and plead and work to get 1/20,000s of the attention he does- and they are almost all better than he is. The 20ish guy who works at your local Starbucks and is working on a book is more talented than that guy is and would be more deserving. He may not be Hemingway, no, but he is better than Brown- and Brown is famous worldwide and a millionaire!

On the other hand, trash can somehow reach the level of a classic and be more enduring than mediocrity or "very good but not great". You ever notice this? Rebel Without a Cause is not a very good movie. There were far better films made in the 1950s. There were probably even far better films made for teenagers in the 1950s. And yet, none of them are remembered today- but that movie is.

Bad movies, bad novels, bad art, bad comics, bad crafts can become classics and last. Not sure about bad music. For me, it's impossible to enjoy bad music. I hear a song I hate on the radio, I reach for the dial. You don't love bad music.

Unless it reaches the level of "so bad, it's good". Maybe.

timhau

22nd September 2009, 10:29 PM

EeneyMinnieMoe

22nd September 2009, 10:40 PM

What irks me especially, as a student of art history, are the artistic errors of fact: the materials of which the Mona Lisa is comprised, the size of the picture plane, the identities of the personages pictured in the Last Supper and other paintings. All of this stuff is easily verifiable in art history books, and getting it right should have been a simple matter for an author married to an art history teacher!

I know exactly what you mean. I went to art school and had art history as one of the subjects and the factoids and pseudo art history drove me bananas.

I do not pretend to be an expert. At all. What I know, I know from high school and college and reading on my own and museum visits. And I could have debunked every single thing in it from memory. Without even doing my own research or reaching for a textbook!

Same thing with his information on religion, science, math, history, literature and language. I could barely contain myself from taking a big red pen to the book, correcting everything and sending Dan Brown the revised version.

Reading his novels- for any one who has the most basic understanding of these subjects- consists of gritting one's teeth and groaning "THAT.IS.NOT.RIGHT!"

arthwollipot

22nd September 2009, 10:46 PM

So how is it that a poorly written, cliched book that you have to excuse the inconsistencies, bad research and gratuitous encyclopedic masturbation that peppers it to make it through gains such immense popularity, while other books that are written better, are far better researched and have decent plot lines barely make it onto the top one hundred lists?If I knew that I'd be making squillions as a famous author right now.

LissaLysikan

23rd September 2009, 01:45 AM

Is there any GOOD fiction being written? Like in the last 20 years?

arthwollipot

23rd September 2009, 01:52 AM

Is there any GOOD fiction being written? Like in the last 20 years?I'm told that there's some very good fanfic. :rolleyes:

Damien Evans

23rd September 2009, 01:55 AM

I did read it. So I can't say 'no, don't'. I picked up my stepfather's copy, in spite of suspecting it would be awful. And I did read it all. It hurt, but I persisted, mostly just to face the ending.

I read it for the same reason most people do - because somebody else read it and said they liked it, and there appeared to be a widespread appreciation of it. Like most people, I wanted to know what the fuss was about.

So, I don't blame people for reading it, to be honest. Hype waves are like that. I also read Harry Potter for the same reason.

Athon

Comparing Harry Potter with this dreck is a most foul insult to J.K Rowling.

timhau

23rd September 2009, 02:10 AM

Is there any GOOD fiction being written? Like in the last 20 years?

In the thriller genre? Yes, definitely. Some of those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Trilogy) even sell well.

Damien Evans

23rd September 2009, 02:20 AM

Is there any GOOD fiction being written? Like in the last 20 years?

yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Reichs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_Dead

a_unique_person

23rd September 2009, 02:54 AM

as long as sperm was taken through needles

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow.

Delscottio

23rd September 2009, 03:27 AM

The worst thing about the DVC was, the first half of the book (which at least had a followable and reasonably readable plot) was a complete rip off of a number of other books.

Then when he had to start coming up with his own plot it was shocking. How he managed to stretch the riddle about Newton for 5 chapters was remarkable in its banality. A, literally, half decent throwaway novel.

I haven't read any of his other stuff I dread to imagine a full book of his own plot lines.

(I'm no book snob, I enjoy loads of easy reads that while away a few hours btw)

Shrike

23rd September 2009, 06:16 AM

I think I'm getting curious to read at least DVC.
The Dutch translation then, just see what the translator has done with it. Maybe I'll even be bothered to find a list of errors or bad writing and see what he/she has done with it.

Simon39759

23rd September 2009, 09:56 AM

I admit to having enjoyed Brown's books. Sure, they're not exactly great literature, but they're good enough to pass the time. Although I think it was Digital Fortress irritated me a little, since it was basically one long MacGuffin chase. I remember thinking that if I did this to a roleplaying group, they'd probably lynch me. It went a bit like this:

"Where's the MacGuffin?"

"She has it - she just got on that bus."

(follows the bus)

"Where's the MacGuffin?"

"I don't have it any more, I gave it to a guy who rode off on a motorcycle."

(chases the motorcycle)

"Where's the MacGuffin?"

"Well, I did have it, but this goth chick picked my pocket and stole it from me."

(finds goth chick)

"Where's the MacGuffin?"

"You're just five minutes too late..."

etc, etc.

That could actually work but:
a) The pursuit should last a relatively short length of time, not even a whole game session, maybe 1 hour or 30 minutes. We don't want it to grow boring.
b) There should be a twist, preferentially a humorous one at the end. At least, the McGuffin is false. The first guy gave it as a decoy so that the players run after the bus while he goes on to do whatever (that could be irritating for the players if the pursuit was too long, one more reason to keep it short).

At least, it would be an efficient way to take a side quest the players are not very interested in and increase its length while at the same time make it personal.

dudalb

23rd September 2009, 11:51 AM

Writing decent prose should be a simple matter for an author like Brown who used to be an English teacher himself, but...

"Those who can't do, teach" seems to apply with special force to English teachers and Professors of Literature.

Skeptic

23rd September 2009, 01:21 PM

Old fashioned way...immaculate conception?

(Pet peeve)

Nonononononononononnononono.

The immaculate conception refers to the fact that Mary was born without original sin. That's all it ever meant. The Jesus affair is called the "Virgin Birth".

No connection.

BobTheDonkey

23rd September 2009, 01:30 PM

bjornart

23rd September 2009, 02:32 PM

It surprises me that as of yet, no one has yet taken him to court over this. Methinks several institutions (e.g., the RC church) have enough grounds for a defamation suit. And the buyers, on the other hand, may feel duped by this.

I seem to recall reading that when it comes to defamation, fiction gets a free pass, and that writing "this is based on actual facts" on the first page is pretty much considered a literary device, not a legal statement.

Vortigern99

23rd September 2009, 02:38 PM

(Pet peeve)

Nonononononononononnononono.

The immaculate conception refers to the fact that Mary was born without original sin. That's all it ever meant. The Jesus affair is called the "Virgin Birth".

No connection.

Since we're handing out corrections of minor pet-peevish errors, allow me to point out that what you meant to write was not "the fact that Mary was born without original sin", but "the doctrine that Mary was born without original sin".

It isn't even a "fact" that Mary existed, much less that she was "born of original sin", whatever that may mean outside of an unprovable metaphysical belief system.

Basilio

23rd September 2009, 03:02 PM

I listened to the audiobook of The Da Vinci Code on a long car trip, and once I accepted the fact that I was listening to a screenplay instead of an actual book, it turned out to be a fun enough way to pass the miles.

This was exactly my wife's response when she finished reading it. It makes a better movie than a book.

Retrograde

23rd September 2009, 07:54 PM

Brown gets wrong any number of historical details about Constantine the Great, the writings of the Gnostic texts, the Priory of Sion hoax, the Inquisition, the witch trials of the late Middle Ages, etc. etc. etc. -- none of which mistakes could be considered slanderous, since they're just stupid errors made by a writer who simply did not do his research.

But you have to admit that Paris is in France, so he does get some things right.

My favorite howler from Angles and Demons: Catholicism borrowed the concept of communion from the Aztecs' particular style of human sacrifice. Right up there with Langdon jumping out of some aircraft at great altitude and landing, unhurt, in the Tiber because he was holding on to a windshield.

DevilsAdvocate

23rd September 2009, 11:09 PM

My one word review of every Dan Brown book I’ve read:

Sophomoric.

That one word perfectly describes the writing style and the characters.

His genius expert characters always make me think of a few characters of my own:

1. A guy who has worked as an auto mechanic for 25 years who gets all giddy when he enthusiastically explains the intricate details of how he replaces a Holley 26-124 blue reusable fiber fuel bowl screw gasket on a Barry Grant 132-6282010VM 625 cfm Road Demon Jr. manual choke towing 350ci carburetor designed for small block V8 engines with cam profiles of less than 200° duration at .050".

2. A person interviewing for a senior position in a highly technical field that has no experience in the field but spent the previous night googling technical phrases, published responses to common interview questions, and current controversial topics with the confident expectation that such knowledge is equivalent to and indistinguishable from the knowledge of someone who has many years of education and experience in the field.

3. Someone who thoroughly enjoys learning about a wide variety of subjects for the sake of memorizing bits of trivia that they can later restate at parties or in conversation so that they will appear smart and knowledgeable and make friends. The sacred feminine. The sacred feminine. The sacred feminine. The sacred feminine. The sacred feminine. The sacred feminine.

Overconfident pretentiously ostentatious conceit thinly veiling limited knowledge and unrecognized immaturity.

Still, they were good books to read on business trips. I think I bought them all at airport shops. A Dan Brown book is good simply easy page turning reading for a couple flights and a night or two in a hotel where you just want something easy to think about other than work.

DevilsAdvocate

23rd September 2009, 11:15 PM

This was exactly my wife's response when she finished reading it. It makes a better movie than a book.I thought that too. There were some passages where I was thinking that it was simply giving screen board or camera directions.

timhau

23rd September 2009, 11:19 PM

This was exactly my wife's response when she finished reading it. It makes a better movie than a book.

The only reason the movie is better than the book is that in the movie, you don't have to put up with Brown's prose.

timhau

23rd September 2009, 11:22 PM

Still, they were good books to read on business trips. I think I bought them all at airport shops. A Dan Brown book is good simply easy page turning reading for a couple flights and a night or two in a hotel where you just want something easy to think about other than work.

That's pretty much what I thought of them: airline reading. Easy, sucks you in (even though as someone said in this thread, it does this more by creating curiosity rather than suspense), doesn't require much thought, and has short chapters so you're never more than a page or two from a convenient stopping point when they start serving food or refreshments.

athon

24th September 2009, 04:45 PM

If I knew that I'd be making squillions as a famous author right now.

I wonder if that is true. Just meaning, I suspect it has more to do with something we (as potential writers) would have no control over.

From what I understand, Matthew Reilly's first book, Contest, found no willing publishers or agents when he first tried to put it out there. So, he went to a vanity press and distributed to some local book stores in Sydney. Pan Macmillan's commissioning editor came across a copy and signed him up.

Contest, as a concept, sounded ok. In fact I liked the idea enough to pick up a second hand copy. So I can see why it would do ok on the shelf. But beyond that, it is a truly sad read. Reilly is well known for wanting to be script writer for Hollywood-style movies - why he didn't just do that is anybody's guess. His drivel would do well as a B-grade action film.

Thing is, with my (limited) understanding of the publishing industry, most hype waves are made. The intrinsic qualities of the writer's work rarely has much to do with it.

Comparing Harry Potter with this dreck is a most foul insult to J.K Rowling.

Meh, JK is ok. Don't get me wrong, she sure ain't Dan Brown, but again, it's a case of immense popularity where there are other young adult books that are better written and better thought out. I don't begrudge her success, yet sadly I fell into the series-trap where I finished the seven books only because I'd started them.

I realise I tend to prefer books that other people might tend to find harder to digest. For instance, I absolutely love Greg Egan, while anybody who doesn't have at least some appreciation of science would find them way too hardcore. Peter Hamilton's books are brilliant space opera, however it's not exactly the small, easy to swallow pulp produced by other writers. So I concede it can be a difference in tastes.

Athon

arthwollipot

24th September 2009, 10:54 PM

That could actually work but:
a) The pursuit should last a relatively short length of time, not even a whole game session, maybe 1 hour or 30 minutes. We don't want it to grow boring.
b) There should be a twist, preferentially a humorous one at the end. At least, the McGuffin is false. The first guy gave it as a decoy so that the players run after the bus while he goes on to do whatever (that could be irritating for the players if the pursuit was too long, one more reason to keep it short).

At least, it would be an efficient way to take a side quest the players are not very interested in and increase its length while at the same time make it personal.I think you just gave me an idea for my next game.

Simon39759

25th September 2009, 10:59 AM

*Bow to Arthwollipot*

Sweet! Glad to help, but yes, I like having the bad guy treating the PC like idiots.

That way, it goes from 'stopping the generic end of the world' to, get back to the bastard that made us feel stupid.
If you happen to have some computer friendly note for that game (like, in a word document or something), please don't hesitate to PM them to me...

catsmate1

25th September 2009, 12:30 PM

Does anyone think that James Patterson is a terrible writer? His detective mysteries are normally wrapped up by zero detection and a great deal of luck or coincidence. His writing just grates on me - although he's not as bad as Reilly.

Yes he is awful. And now he's basically a franchise operation..........

I know exactly what you mean. I went to art school and had art history as one of the subjects and the factoids and pseudo art history drove me bananas.

I work in IT, I have for many years. However before that I studied science to the point of multiple degrees, including a M.Sc. in Materials Science and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics/Cosmology, plus training in Criminalistics. I just can't read or watch some fiction because of the atrocious *research*.
This is particularly bad when it comes to IT and crime solving; I've had to put books away and turn off TV programmes. The stupid, it burns.

I'm told that there's some very good fanfic.

There is. I've read some stuff that's actually far better, in terms of writing and characterisation, than most published stuff.
Though with internet/vanity PoD publishing being so easy today some awful dreck gets printed. Try anything by Stuart Slade.

2. A person interviewing for a senior position in a highly technical field that has no experience in the field but spent the previous night googling technical phrases, published responses to common interview questions, and current controversial topics with the confident expectation that such knowledge is equivalent to and indistinguishable from the knowledge of someone who has many years of education and experience in the field.

Yep still happens, I've seen in my own work in IT people *still* try this. It doesn't work when even one of the interviewers has proper technical knowledge This is one reason HR types do not hire staff for me, despite their opinion that they should have full control of the process.

Someone who thoroughly enjoys learning about a wide variety of subjects for the sake of memorizing bits of trivia that they can later restate at parties or in conversation so that they will appear smart and knowledgeable and make friends.

Hitler was notorious for this technique; he'd skim reports and pick up minor details. He used it to humiliate his general staff.

timhau

25th September 2009, 02:31 PM

Oh, Patterson. His prose is worse than Brown's (he's apparently never heard of the 'show, don't tell' rule, and therefore the only reason we know his antagonists are evil superhuman geniuses is the fact that he mentions it at least once on every page), and his characters are even flatter; to his credit, his books don't have that air of faked smartness.

Retrograde

26th September 2009, 12:11 AM

From a full-page promo in Thursday's New York Times come these carefully selected words:
"Amazing...Impossible to put down...Dan Brown brings sexy back to a genre that had been left for dead...His code and clue-filled book is dense with exotica"

Mr or Ms Selective Quoter: 'exotica' doesn't mean what you hope the people who buy this book think it means.

I read a Patterson book once: it seemed to depend on improbable coincidences and the protagonists stumbling across the right clue just in the nick of time. I don't remember anything else about it, including the title.

Cactus Wren

26th September 2009, 02:07 AM

I read David Eddings when I was about 11. I loved it. Thought it was great. I read Dragonlance around then as well, and also thought it was the best read.

I tried again on both accounts years later, just to bring back the memories. I was horrified at just how awful they were. How could I have loved them so much once upon a time?

Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain. Bolding mine:

"In rereading L. Ron Hubbard's The End Is Not Yet, which I had first read at age fourteen, I was so amazed at how much worse it was than I had remembered that I seriously considered the possibility that there were two novels of the same name and by the same author but of vastly differing quality. I can no longer manage credulous acceptance as well as I used to. In Larry Niven's Neutron Star the plot hinges on the astonishing tidal forces exerted by a strong gravitational field. But we are asked to believe that hundreds or thousands of years from now, at a time of casual interstellar space-flight, such tidal forces have been forgotten. We are asked to believe that the first probe of a neutron star is done by a manned rather than by an unmanned spacecraft. We are asked too much. In a novel of ideas, the ideas have to work."

I haven't yet read The Lost Symbol and am having trouble working up a desire to do so. What has stayed with me the most about Da Vinci Code is a single scene in which the two main characters are baffled by a centuries-old, handwritten document they've run across. (It's reproduced in the book, so readers can examine it as well.)

Bear in mind that while the hero is usually called a "symbologist", in real-world terms he's an art historian. He specializes in the works of Leonardo da Vinci.

The heroine is a codebreaker. No mere solver of newspaper crypto-puzzles, we're told, but a world-class cryptanalyst.

"HE'S a Leonardo expert! SHE'S a world-class cryptanalyst! IN A WORLD where every reader can examine the document they're analyzing ... "

... these two characters, working together, take several pages to figure out that the document they're puzzling over is a page of mirror-writing.

Simon39759

26th September 2009, 10:36 AM

"

... these two characters, working together, take several pages to figure out that the document they're puzzling over is a page of mirror-writing.

Ha!
That's hilarious.

Lucian

26th September 2009, 01:22 PM

Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain. Bolding mine:

"In rereading L. Ron Hubbard's The End Is Not Yet, which I had first read at age fourteen, I was so amazed at how much worse it was than I had remembered that I seriously considered the possibility that there were two novels of the same name and by the same author but of vastly differing quality. I can no longer manage credulous acceptance as well as I used to. In Larry Niven's Neutron Star the plot hinges on the astonishing tidal forces exerted by a strong gravitational field. But we are asked to believe that hundreds or thousands of years from now, at a time of casual interstellar space-flight, such tidal forces have been forgotten. We are asked to believe that the first probe of a neutron star is done by a manned rather than by an unmanned spacecraft. We are asked too much. In a novel of ideas, the ideas have to work."

I haven't yet read The Lost Symbol and am having trouble working up a desire to do so. What has stayed with me the most about Da Vinci Code is a single scene in which the two main characters are baffled by a centuries-old, handwritten document they've run across. (It's reproduced in the book, so readers can examine it as well.)

Bear in mind that while the hero is usually called a "symbologist", in real-world terms he's an art historian. He specializes in the works of Leonardo da Vinci.

The heroine is a codebreaker. No mere solver of newspaper crypto-puzzles, we're told, but a world-class cryptanalyst.

"HE'S a Leonardo expert! SHE'S a world-class cryptanalyst! IN A WORLD where every reader can examine the document they're analyzing ... "

... these two characters, working together, take several pages to figure out that the document they're puzzling over is a page of mirror-writing.

Yeah, they definitely seemed a bit dim for experts. I vaguely recall a scene in a Swiss bank where they needed a super-secret PIN to get into a super-secure safety-deposit box (or something). So they're flouncing about, wringing their hands and saying: "Oh my God, what'll we do, what'll we do?" (I paraphrase). I remember thinking, "Hey, what about that code that you found scrawled next to Grandpa's body? Do you think that could be important at all?" Nitwits.

And then there's one of the central points of the novel. They come to the conclusion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child. Okay, fine, whatever. But wait, there's more. Apparently this proves that Jesus wasn't divine. Really? An expert on religious iconography symbolism symbology, and this is what he's gleaned as the message of Christianity: that Christ's divinity hinges on his virginity? I thought it had something to do with being the Son of God, the Word made Flesh and all that malarkey. For a very long time orthodox western Christianity has maintained the idea that Christ was fully divine AND fully human. Any group that denied Christ's humanity (like, say, Brown's pals the Gnostics) were considered heretics. One would presume, therefore, that Jesus would at least be physically capable of fathering a child without losing his divine status. But, okay, fine, for the sake of argument, I'll go along with it. Or I would, except somehow, although Jesus isn't divine, Mary IS: she's the sacred feminine. How does that work? She's divine because she was the baby-mama of some guy who wasn't God? Wow. So, is every woman who has borne a child fathered by a guy who isn't God divine? If so, I've got to start buying better Mother's Day presents.

MarkCorrigan

26th September 2009, 06:06 PM

I would have no problem with Brown's absurd fictionalization of historical personages and events, nor with his continuous stream of factual errors and blatant falsehoods... if there were not an entire page, at the front of each of his smutty, ill-conceived potboilers, devoted to the proclomation that [paraphrasing] the work to follow is based on accurate historical information and verifiable fact.

This declaration is patently false, and it irks me that Brown has duped thousands, or even millions, of readers into accepting his baloney claims as real and legitimate.

Ever watched Fargo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_%28film%29#Fact_vs._fiction)

imjohn

9th October 2009, 10:14 PM

Ever watched Fargo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_%28film%29#Fact_vs._fiction)
Not a good comparison.

Fargo is good.

Nick Terry

10th October 2009, 11:43 AM

In order of awfulness

1. James Patterson
2. Dan Brown
3. Matthew Reilly

with Patterson being by far the most annoying of all of them. At least Brown's earlier books were moderately entertaing thriller romps, whereas DVC was tedious waffle and led to an even more boring movie.

Matthew Reilly would indeed make for a halfway decent action movie scriptwriter, so given that the DVC movie sucked, even his leaden prose has to rate better than Brown's.

Speaking of the DVC plotline/CT, I recently re-read The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail - the original edition - and found that compared to half the CT tripe I have read since for debunking purposes, as well as to Dan Brown's version, the book was actually quite enjoyable, especially if you read it in the knowledge that the authors were being comprehensively hoaxed by a gang of French pranksters engaged in a bizarre esoteric practical joke that went on for the better part of 2 decades. When Baigent/Lincoln/Leigh kept on asking themselves, 'could this be a hoax? but no, that cannot be because of x', I was wetting myself laughing.

Carnivore

11th October 2009, 07:58 AM

Matthew Reilly would indeed make for a halfway decent action movie scriptwriter, so given that the DVC movie sucked, even his leaden prose has to rate better than Brown's.

I have to disagree here. Reilly's books are so awful because they essentially narrations of imaginary first person shooter video games. Filming them wouldn't make them any better.

I am trying to imagine one his books onscreen.

The one where the British Army invades Antarctica to steal the spaceship and laugh as they sadistically torture the US Marines and feed them to the killer whales?

The one where the mysterious black clad anti hero who never takes off his sunglasses and wears twin sawn off shotguns on his hips flies his fighter plane all over the world without fuel or ground crew - especially the part where he flies his plane all around the inside of a French aircraft carrier to rescue the US Marines (who escape the carrier by blowing it up from the inside with a nuclear bazooka.)?

The one where the hero prevents the Confederates from blowing up Northern cities with nuclear bombs (which they plan to do by killing the POTUS who has a transmitter attached to his heart beaming a "dont blow up the North" signal to satellites) , by flying the President into space?

The one where ordinary citizens and aliens are teleported into the New York City Public Library and forced to engage in gladiatorial combat?

The one where all the countries in the world send their best troops to fight each other in a race against time to find all of the 7 wonders of the ancient world in order - honestly- to perform the magic spell that appeases the Sun God and stop him from ending the world?

The one where every single person in military uniform is a sadistic and psychotic traitor apart from the hero and his bestest buds? (Actually that's every Mathew Reilly book.)

Mathew Reilly writes like a hyperactive 8 year old "24" fan. I confidently predict his next book will involve supersoldiers fighting dinosaurs. Any movie made from one of his books would have to have 90% of it's content slashed just to bring it down to a sanity level that Uwe Boll would consider filming.

I read an interview with Reilly where he said that his earlier books didn't have enough action. He had resolved this in his later books by having all of his characters planning, problem solving, social interaction and emotional development take place during gunfights and chases. You know, so he wasn't wasting any time. He seemed very proud of this. I genuinely hate to say this, but the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" is probably a better movie than anything Mathew Reilly is capable of writing.

The Central Scrutinizer

11th October 2009, 08:03 AM

Seriously, I know the usual drill - 'Yeah, he's a hack, but a) you're just jealous, b) it's pulp fiction, c) not everybody can write well...etc. etc.'

Now at least I have a handy list of 20 reasons why Dan Brown is over-rated (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6194031/The-Lost-Symbol-and-The-Da-Vinci-Code-author-Dan-Browns-20-worst-sentences.html) as a writer. I mean, seriously - if I was an editor and somebody handed me such poorly written tripe, it would have red ink all over it.

And this made it to print. And sold in the millions.

*sigh*

Athon

So you're (A) Jealous. :)

arthwollipot

11th October 2009, 08:40 PM

Carnivore: for someone who really hates Reilly's books, you sure have read a lot of them.

Nick Terry

12th October 2009, 03:25 AM

Carnivore: for someone who really hates Reilly's books, you sure have read a lot of them.

in fact, he's read more of them than I have.

That may of course account for why eager thriller aficionados start off by quite enjoying a particular trash-merchant, buy several in a row, and then come to hate them because piece of trash #5 is just, well, too stinky for words.

I did after all nominate James Patterson as worse than Matthew Reilly, but Patterson's early novels still provided the basis for a couple of halfway decent movie scripts, but it was only after you have read the same essential book 5-6 times that it becomes obvious when such writers have transcended formula (which is not necessarily a bad thing if you're seeking McDonalds-quality airport reading) and gone beyond cliche to enter into the Hall of Infamy reserved for the worst writers ever.

Although I have no intention of ever reading a 'new' Matthew Reilly, I don't regret having expended a few hours a time reading the early ones, because they were so utterly preposterous they kept me entertained for the duration.

Maybe it is indeed better to compare such books with FPS games or Uwe Boll movies; I know I had waay more fun reading Ice Station or whatever it was called than I did trying to watch Uwe Boll's drivel. And it's a dead cert that I have wasted less time and less money reading a few Reilly books than on the half dozen FPS games I played once upon a time.

athon

13th October 2009, 02:55 AM

So you're (A) Jealous. :)

;)

Am I that transparent?

Athon

Kotatsu

13th October 2009, 04:40 AM

The one where the British Army invades Antarctica to steal the spaceship and laugh as they sadistically torture the US Marines and feed them to the killer whales?

The one where the mysterious black clad anti hero who never takes off his sunglasses and wears twin sawn off shotguns on his hips flies his fighter plane all over the world without fuel or ground crew - especially the part where he flies his plane all around the inside of a French aircraft carrier to rescue the US Marines (who escape the carrier by blowing it up from the inside with a nuclear bazooka.)?

The one where the hero prevents the Confederates from blowing up Northern cities with nuclear bombs (which they plan to do by killing the POTUS who has a transmitter attached to his heart beaming a "dont blow up the North" signal to satellites) , by flying the President into space?

The one where ordinary citizens and aliens are teleported into the New York City Public Library and forced to engage in gladiatorial combat?

The one where all the countries in the world send their best troops to fight each other in a race against time to find all of the 7 wonders of the ancient world in order - honestly- to perform the magic spell that appeases the Sun God and stop him from ending the world?

These books, when summarized in this fashion, sound fantastic. I can only imagine that the problems lie in the execution.

athon

13th October 2009, 04:05 PM

These books, when summarized in this fashion, sound fantastic. I can only imagine that the problems lie in the execution.

I bought Contest because the premise sounded quite interesting. The execution, indeed, was woeful.

To be perfectly honest, I was also going through a phase (which although has become less militant, is still a strong opinion I have) where I felt appalled by Australian writers setting their narratives unnecessarily in overseas places.

Australians read quite prolifically per capita, but our small population means it's difficult enough for an Australian writer to get published. Our market is full of imports, a situation which could get a whole lot worse shortly if new laws on publishing rights come in.

Now, I have no problem with reading books set overseas. I have no issue if an Australian author writes a book set in historical Europe or America, for instance. However I feel disappointed when an Australian author has to set their narrative in America just for the sake of it. Contest could have worked well as an Australian book, but Reilly wanted the New York cliche.

Beyond that, it was a half decent idea that read like a 14 year old's attempt at writing a film script.

Athon