Not even bad enough to be called the worst book ever

Procrastinator

The Da Vinci Code. I read this because of all the hoopla, just to see what everyone was talking about, and it could hardly be called literature.
It's a kind of pulp detective novel, with the same romantic gamut as a mills and boon. I did notice at the time though, that it seemed to be written like a movie; laid out as if it were anticipating how its scenes would be cut together.
All the movie cliiches/dead giveaways are there:
It has the love interest, the mystery, the appaling, deformed self-abusing puppet villain who's too dim to know that he's being controlled by others and is really a corrupted innocent at heart...please, give me a break.
With this kind of 'movie' sensibility, I wonder if Dan is a reader at all?
And before anyone takes umbrage, I'd like to say that this is not sour grapes or a case of everyone likes it so I'll hate it. I genuinely think it's a dreadful book and because I don't read that many dreadful books, I don't have any others from which to choose for this thread...except perhaps Fank McCourt's Angela's Ashes. What a load of old Bunk.

Oh, just remembered I also HATE Robinson Crusoe...a dreadful unimaginative, clunky, bloody boring read.

TheIrishGrover

Procrastinator wrote:

I did notice at the time though, that it seemed to be written like a movie; laid out as if it were anticipating how its scenes would be cut together..

Yeah, I was bored to tears with it. Kept waiting for the book to kick in. Dull dull dull. And as for what you said above, I remember thinking the same it was almost like "And the cop (Can't remember his name) looked very like that guy from Leon. And Langton reminded you of that guy from Road To Perdition"

Of course everybody's entitled to their own opinion but I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one. Cheers Pro

John

Procrastinator wrote:

Oh, just remembered I also HATE Robinson Crusoe...a dreadful unimaginative, clunky, bloody boring read.

I agree with you on The DaVinci Code but you're way off there. Crusoe is an absolutely great book

munkeehaven

I still cant bring myself to read the book...

Dades

Not even bad enough to be called the worst book ever

What does that mean?

meldrew

Everyones entitled to their opinion , I dont think its as bad as everyone makes it out to be though .
I found it easy to read and it kept the tension and pace going what more are you looking for in a book like that , I was'nt expecting it to be a literary masterpiece but I've definitely read worse .

Blush_01

I haven't read it, although I intend to at some stage.

Crusoe has to be read with at least some reference to the time in which it was written. When it came out it was a real departure from the norm - a novel was big news back then as it was a new writing genre. Now it's all been done before. Don't read Robinson Crusoe as though it was written yesterday, because that does both it and you a huge disservice.

Fighting Irish

The Atheist wrote:

Not even bad enough to be called the worst book ever

What does that mean?

:werd: i noticed that too, looks like the OP hasn't got a clue what he's talking about

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because if it was the worst book ever it would be 'good' at being the worst book ever, but it's just so bad it's not even good enough to be that bad.

do you understand now? or should I write it in crayon?

Blush_01

Maybe OP meant it's not even good enough to be called the worst book ever...?

Dades

Mordeth wrote:

do you understand now? or should I write it in crayon?

I've another suggestion for a use of your crayon.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

get thee behind me satan!

RE*AC*TOR

The Atheist wrote:

I've another suggestion for a use of your crayon.

haha

Its not that bad a book. Its not great literature, but in the world of the John Grisham literati - its certainly entertaining. I don't think the general level of excitement over the book was because of its clever literary devices etc. Moreso it was a compelling enough read, it appealed to a large number of people.

Not every book can be Ulysses.

LoLth

as reactor said. its not a fantastically written book but it does do the job, it entertains. the one thing i do like about the da vinci code is the level of collateral interest that has been generated.

People start with the daVinci code and actually do finish it because it is so easy to read and doesnt require much thinking. Then they are encouraged to move on to something with a bit more meat. A friend of mine never reads books. Read the daVinci code and then borrowed Focault's Pendulum (and actually read it! ) then borrowed the Cryptonomicon which he is really enjoying.

Not to mention the amount of people who suddenly had an urge to view painted masterpieces or admire architecture.

Not a good book in and of itself but its popularity is good for literature and culture in general imho.

deception point and digital fortress however.......

Dades

Mordeth wrote:

get thee behind me satan!

Better to keep Satan in front of you methinks.

I agree that the renewed interest in things historical is a good thing. (I actually spoke to some Americans in the Lourve in November who were looking to find "The Last Supper" - good luck). The effects of the book have been huge because of the content. Which is why I think people are over-critical of the writing. Otherwise it would just be another harmless throwaway airport novel.

Procrastinator

Mordeth wrote:

because if it was the worst book ever it would be 'good' at being the worst book ever, but it's just so bad it's not even good enough to be that bad.

do you understand now? or should I write it in crayon?

Thank you for the clarification M. I'm living in modem-connect-to-the-phone-line land and have tried several times to write an explanation to the thread title but the server timed-out on me!

Yes that's what I meant.
It's actually a paraphrase, or a plagiarised version (depending on which definition you like most), of a review I heard a wag give to the director of a movie he hadn't particularly liked. (I wish it had been Michael Bay)

'Not only' he said 'have you not made a good movie, what you have done is to make something that isn't even that bad. If it had been the worst movie ever made, then that would have been an achievement', or words to that effect.

Ok the Robinson Crusoe debate.
Yes I know all the historical, set-it-in-context argument, but the book is just plain bad and uninteresting. I loved Tom Jones, Joseph Andrews was eminently readable, I Loved Gaye's The Beggar's Opera, a play, but set in and written in roughly the same time.

One of the posters said that to read it without setting it in context was to do Crusoe a 'disservice';
1. That's an assumption on the poster's part. Of course I read and considered it in context, and I still don't like it.

2. A 'disservice'? I just don't like the book. In fact it does a disservice to all those of us who have had to read it.

3. The novel being a new genre at the time. The is the usual argument for the inclusion of Crusoe on lists of 'Important books'.
Its a 'make and do' book and that's why I don't like it.

I'm not saying it should be ignored. it should instead, be given its proper place in literature; passages of it should be used to show where the novel originated, and to what it was tending towards during those early stages, but not use the whole book.
As for beginnings, yes its an early example, but you still have to keep an eye on what you find aesthetically pleasing, or in Crusoe's case aesthetically annoying.

4. The subject matter, the novel itself, and its most annoying aspect for me : About a man finds himself washed up on a beach, lonely friendless, and crucially without the appurtenances of civilisation. That's the theme; he civilises the island, Friday, the land, his sense of subjective time and so on: He puts order on his world, he constructs his own civilisation, agriculture, method of marking the passage of time and instructs Friday as to their proper relative places in the world...hence a 'make and do' book. HENCE I FIND IT REALLY BORING.
Crusoe engages in all manner of futile, stupid stuff...he makes a boat, but on the top of a hill and then when it's completed, he can't get it as far as the sea. What an eejit.

Lastly: To anyone out there who likes it, good luck to you all.

r3nu4l

Firstly, the Da Vinci Code was simply an entertaining piece of pulp that caught the public imagination thanks to the "secret" religious societies, murder, intrigue, powerful forces hiding an ancient truth. Literature it ain't, passable enough yarn it is

Secondly, Robinson Crusoe! Must admit, I don't particularly llike the book but... if you have ever read Wilkie Collins "The Moonstone", published 1868 (described as the worlds first detective novel!) you will know that one of the narrative characters constantly refers to passages from Robinson Crusoe saying that the book is full of quotes explaining the truths of life!

Excerpt:
"I am not superstitious; I have read a heap of books in my time; I am a scholar in my own way. Though turned seventy, I possess an active memory, and legs to correspond. You are not to take it, if you please, as the saying of an ignorant man, when I express my opinion that such a book as Robinson Crusoe never was written, and never will be written again. I have tried that book for years—generally in combination with a pipe of tobacco—and I have found it my friend in need in all the necessities of this mortal life. When my spirits are bad—Robinson Crusoe. When I want advice—Robinson Crusoe. In past times, when my wife plagued me; in present times, when I have had a drop too much—Robinson Crusoe. I have worn out six stout Robinson Crusoes with hard work in my service. On my lady’s last birthday she gave me a seventh. I took a drop too much on the strength of it; and Robinson Crusoe put me right again. Price four shillings and sixpence, bound in blue, with a picture into the bargain.

Still, this don’t look much like starting the story of the Diamond—does it? I seem to be wandering off in search of Lord knows what, Lord knows where. We will take a new sheet of paper, if you please, and begin over again, with my best respects to you."

Like it or not, even at the time, the book was providing inspiration for an author and one of his fictional characters!

Procrastinator

r3nu4l wrote:

Firstly, the Da Vinci Code was simply an entertaining piece of pulp that caught the public imagination thanks to the "secret" religious societies, murder, intrigue, powerful forces hiding an ancient truth. Literature it ain't, passable enough yarn it is

Secondly, Robinson Crusoe! Must admit, I don't particularly llike the book but... if you have ever read Wilkie Collins "The Moonstone", published 1868 (described as the worlds first detective novel!) you will know that one of the narrative characters constantly refers to passages from Robinson Crusoe saying that the book is full of quotes explaining the truths of life!

Excerpt:
"I am not superstitious; I have read a heap of books in my time; I am a scholar in my own way. Though turned seventy, I possess an active memory, and legs to correspond. You are not to take it, if you please, as the saying of an ignorant man, when I express my opinion that such a book as Robinson Crusoe never was written, and never will be written again. I have tried that book for years—generally in combination with a pipe of tobacco—and I have found it my friend in need in all the necessities of this mortal life. When my spirits are bad—Robinson Crusoe. When I want advice—Robinson Crusoe. In past times, when my wife plagued me; in present times, when I have had a drop too much—Robinson Crusoe. I have worn out six stout Robinson Crusoes with hard work in my service. On my lady’s last birthday she gave me a seventh. I took a drop too much on the strength of it; and Robinson Crusoe put me right again. Price four shillings and sixpence, bound in blue, with a picture into the bargain.

Still, this don’t look much like starting the story of the Diamond—does it? I seem to be wandering off in search of Lord knows what, Lord knows where. We will take a new sheet of paper, if you please, and begin over again, with my best respects to you."

Like it or not, even at the time, the book was providing inspiration for an author and one of his fictional characters!

Look, I never said that it wasn't inspirational for someone, somewhere. It was of course. No I never read Wilkie Collins' the Moonstone because I know that it's of the same ilk - another 'make and do' book. Find the thing, information, person; investigate it...etc. I also don't like Sherlock Holmes stuff...etc etc. These are all personal preferences.
But, for your information, just because one text inspired another one, or because a character knows about the contents of another fictional work, isn't much of a defence.

You do know that Nabokov's Humbert Humbert, an appaling and sinister creature, could quote any book he liked, and used his considerable literary skill to justify what he felt for and did to Lolita?



I just don't like Crusoe and I notice r3nu4l, that you didn't try to tackle my description of it as 'make and do'. I'll bet that many of the books you'd defend could be described as such.
You like them, good for you...I don't because they make me feel bored, bored, bored. if I needed that kind of intellectual stimulation, I'd read plumbing manual or buy something from IKEA to assemble.
This comment is not meant as a personal jibe, or an insult to anyone who likes it, but I don't think to say that a work is a 'Classic' or that it's quoted elsewhere is an adequate defence of its own inherent artistic merits, or shortfalls; what ever position you take.

Lastly the Da Vinci code.
I agree with some of what you said there. The ideas it posits are the key to that book’s success, but no, I personally, didn’t find it entertaining…had to make an effort to finish it, just so I could understand the debate that was going on around me.


If you liked it, good for you. I'm just saying I didn't and why I didn't.

r3nu4l

Procrastinator wrote:

But, for your information, just because one text inspired another one, or because a character knows about the contents of another fictional work, isn't much of a defence.

Thank you so much for the information, I really wasn't aware of that at all. Your words have changed everything for this poor ill-educated wretch. :rolleyes: Enough said;)

Procrastinator wrote:

You do know that Nabokov's Humbert Humbert, an appaling and sinister creature, could quote any book he liked, and used his considerable literary skill to justify what he felt for and did to Lolita?

So? All I was trying to point out was that whether you or I like the book or not, it was recognised even in the 1860's as an important and different work. That's all, nothing more, jeez maybe you need to take some deep breaths and calm down a bit, nobody's attacking you!

Procrastinator wrote:

I just don't like Crusoe and I notice r3nu4l, that you didn't try to tackle my description of it as 'make and do'. I'll bet that many of the books you'd defend could be described as such.

You see, I didn't like Robinson Crusoe, get it (see later on in my post)? That's probably why I didn't tackle your "make and do" theme that you seem to dislike so much! Not that I necessarily agree with your description but hey ho, it's a (mostly) free world

Procrastinator wrote:

You like them, good for you...I don't because they make me feel bored, bored, bored. if I needed that kind of intellectual stimulation, I'd read plumbing manual or buy something from IKEA to assemble.
This comment is not meant as a personal jibe, or an insult to anyone who likes it, but I don't think to say that a work is a 'Classic' or that it's quoted elsewhere is an adequate defence of its own inherent artistic merits, or shortfalls; what ever position you take.

If you liked it, good for you. I'm just saying I didn't and why I didn't.

Hmmm, obviously didn't read my post properly, did ya fella? :rolleyes:

r3nu4l wrote:

Secondly, Robinson Crusoe! Must admit, I don't particularly llike the book but...

You see, I didn't like Robinson Crusoe, get it? That is to say, I did not like Robinson Crusoe, the book. Or to put it another way, I did not find the book Robinson Crusoe to be good! How many ways do I have to say it? However, that doesn't take from the fact that the book may not be rubbish just because you and I didn't like it! I'm not so arrogant as to think that all my opinions on literature are correct!!

So next time you decide to attack someones post and fill it with "For your information" type of indignancy at least have the decency (and common sense) to read the post you are so vehemently attacking and get the facts right. Relax, unwind and then make a reasoned post

As for the Da Vinci Code and entertainment, well, it really is a case of whatever you are into really, it was a 'leave your brain at home' book all along and not much else but that can be entertaining. Not all entertainment has to be high-brow. I love my intelligent books and art but that doesn't mean I can't find entertainment in something trivial such as Mission Impossible 3 (which I saw on Saturday). I didn't expect any more than I got so thought it was an enjoyable romp

Procrastinator

Thanks for the corrections rul
I am bowled over by your superior arguments....
I stand/sit/type corrected.

Dades

Procrastinator wrote:

I am bowled over by your superior arguments....

Not to mention tactical use of "rolls eyes" smilies.

r3nu4l

Gee, this is a forum i.e. discussion board so you have to expect some sort of discussion, not just for everyone to agree with your opinions. As it happens I do agree in principle but I have specific disagreements, so I air them. And if someone doesn't read my post and picks up a point wrongly then I should (and do) point that out.

As for smilies, of course they are used tactically How else does one use them :rolleyes:

Pro...I'm not asking you to agree or saying you are wrong, I'm discussing, debating etc. as we do onthese boards. I haven't insulted you and I certainly don't want you to "give in" although I do appreciate that you are bowled over by my arguements and it was really generous of you to accept my corrections...:eek: wait a minute!:eek: (tactical usage ) Was that sarcasm?:D Lighten up guys, have fun and have a great weekend. It's Friday

r3nu4l

Gee, this is a forum i.e. discussion board so you have to expect some sort of discussion, not just for everyone to agree with your opinions. As it happens I do agree in principle but I have specific disagreements, so I air them. And if someone doesn't read my post and picks up a point wrongly then I should (and do) point that out.

As for smilies, of course they are used tactically How else does one use them? :rolleyes:

Pro...I'm not asking you to agree or saying you are wrong, I'm discussing, debating etc. as we do onthese boards. I haven't insulted you and I certainly don't want you to "give in" although I do appreciate that you are bowled over by my arguements and it was really generous of you to accept my corrections...:eek: wait a minute!:eek: (tactical usage ) Was that sarcasm?:D Lighten up guys, have fun and have a great weekend. It's Friday

Dades

r3nu4l wrote:

Lighten up guys, have fun and have a great weekend. It's Friday

Indeed it is (I just haaaaate that roll eye smilie)...
ENJOY!