DAN BROWN - GOOD OR BAD - HELP ME DECIDE ONCE AND FOR ALL!!

daithiocondun

Hey everyone, I am about half way through reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol and am reallt enjoying it! I also loved The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Am I crazy??

I am a final year Theology and English student for God's sake! Everyone tells me how Dan Brown is a sensationalist writer and nothing more, and that anyone worth their salt would dismiss his novels as rubbish, faux-exploding novels. But why do I love them??

Is he a really bad writer who just makes up crap about different religious organisations for the sake of causing a stir? If so, I'm beginning to doubt myself!!

All opinions appreciated!
(Let's cause a stir on this site!!)

Eliot Rosewater

I suppose he is good at what he does. He is a thriller writer, and he creates very thrilling episodes. I also like the way he twists in historical/conspiratorial trivia such as in The Da Vinci Code.

I read him when I was younger; I wouldn't have any interest in that kind of book now. But I'd be inclined to say that if you enjoy him thats the most important thing, for yourself. Within the terms of "good" and "bad" as described in college he'd be in the latter, for sure, but I wouldn't let the snobbishness get in the way of personal pleasure. Just don't try and do a thesis on him! :pac:

indough

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I suppose he is good at what he does.

this sums it up perfectly really

tawfeeredux

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

He is a thriller writer, and he creates very thrilling episodes.

I don't think he's a very good thriller writer at all. Granted, I've only read DaVinci Code, but it seemed to me that the thriller part of it was lazily done, especially the denouement. The historical stuff I found a bit more interesting, from a story-telling point of view. Whether it's all bumpf or not, i not really bothered.

Eoin

I find his writing very poor. Admittedly his books are normally real page-turners, but I tried to read a couple of them a second time and I just couldn't get past a chapter or two. The religious element doesn't bother me in the least - I think they could have been very good books if someone else had re-written them/

sron

daithiocondun wrote: »

Hey everyone, I am about half way through reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol and am reallt enjoying it! I also loved The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Am I crazy??

I am a final year Theology and English student for God's sake! Everyone tells me how Dan Brown is a sensationalist writer and nothing more, and that anyone worth their salt would dismiss his novels as rubbish, faux-exploding novels. But why do I love them??

Is he a really bad writer who just makes up crap about different religious organisations for the sake of causing a stir? If so, I'm beginning to doubt myself!!

All opinions appreciated!
(Let's cause a stir on this site!!)

Try Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum'. It's similar to 'The DaVinci Code' but written by someone who spent more than a week researching the book.

Denerick

We really should have a subforum for books that don't qualify as literature...

Gaspode

Good.

bazza1

Browns books are just a good "holiday" read.I enjoyed them as entertainment. Take all the conspiracy crap with a large pinch of salt and just enjoy the books for what they are...entertainment!

Must go....the people from Sion are coming for tea! :D

Squaw Crow

I think that dan brown is sensationalist and that is precisely the reason why people love it so much. I think that its like the junk food of reading. You know its bad for you, decaying your mind or whatnot, but sometimes you just want to have an easy filler, not 1984. I think that his work is terrible. It isn't literature, its popcorn fiction. You take one bite, and you find yourself going on and on and on.....

Shryke

Terribly two dimensional characters, ridiculous plots, a cheap cliff hanger every three pages
They're garbage!

Slugs

I think he'd make a fantastic script writer, but as an author he has a lot to make up for. His religious stuff while based in some facts, really need to be more researched. They make him look like he googled the topic and use the first 3 results as sources.

Mardy Bum

He does what he does brilliantly. He is not trying to satisfy the tiny minority of those whose tastes differ in terms of what literature is. If I had his talents I wouldn't give a toss if someone told me it isn't classic lit.

missingtime

The Michael Bay of the literature world.

ixoy

missingtime wrote: »

The Michael Bay of the literature world.

Well put.

I only read "The DaVinci Code" but even then I had to throw the book across the room several times in disgust. It was the poor prose and crap characters. It was the stupidity in there, with characters behaving like idiots just for the sake of the reader. It was that the facts behind the book weren't even revalatory to me, having encountered them elsewhere.

I'd have to be paid to read him again.

Squaw Crow

Shryke wrote: »

Terribly two dimensional characters, ridiculous plots, a cheap cliff hanger every three pages
They're garbage!

That pretty much says it all!

crótach

Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are two of my favourite Dan Brown books as well, I didn't find the other two very interesting and I haven't read the Lost Symbol yet.

It makes a great holiday read, or commuter read. Short chapters, you can put the book down after a 15-20 minute journey and pick it up on your way back from work without having to get back "into it". It's also written quite simply and makes the reader feel intelligent.

I know I should probably feel quite the opposite, but it works for me and it's entertaining

abouttobebanned

Take the word incredulous away from him and it would be like taking a saw from a carpenter

--Kaiser--

Absolute muck, there's better writing to be found on the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles

kmick

He sets his novels up well but about half way through things start to unravel and by the end you are struggling to finish. He seems to tie up all the loose ends in the last 10 pages without any reference to what went before it.

Verdict - BAD

Dades

daithiocondun wrote: »

But why do I love them??

Because sometimes we want to be mindlessly entertained not educated.

Does what it says on the tin. I enjoyed The DaVinci Code, but swore never to read another after Deception Point.

The only reason he's lambasted over 1,000 other pulp writers is that he's sold more than any of them put together - mainly because he chose a 'provative' subject matter and wrote about it a manner that any pleb could read. Smart if you ask me.

Brendog

Everyone thinks the same thing, that what he writes is bad fact......his books are supposed to be fiction but everyone assumes its fact based.....he is an excellent writer who writes extremely gripping stories that are also very visual. In my opinion your acting very childish. If you like Dan Brown's writing style then you like it. You shouldn't be making judgments on what other people in your course think about his style. His novel "Digital Fortress" is also a great read. Its one of his more modern and technological stories.

Eoin

Sorry, but he is not an excellent writer. I don't care if it's not actually true or not - doesn't bother me at all. I just find his prose very poor.

Cunsiderthis

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Absolute muck, there's better writing to be found on the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles

You may be right ( it's subjective) but my guess is that it's more profitable to have written as Dan Brown has rather than as whoever wrote the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles.

There is such a snobbery by some to the populist nature of books by Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer. Dan brown is a populist writer and that some seek high literature from him, and when they don't find it they rubbish him, seems to be fashionable.

Why not just accept he is a populist author, and not expect anything else? Or is the fashion to sneer at his work too powerful not to join in and say how awful it all is.

daithiocondun

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

You may be right ( it's subjective) but my guess is that it's more profitable to have written as Dan Brown has rather than as whoever wrote the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles.

There is such a snobbery by some to the populist nature of books by Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer. Dan brown is a populist writer and that some seek high literature from him, and when they don't find it they rubbish him, seems to be fashionable.

Why not just accept he is a populist author, and not expect anything else? Or is the fashion to sneer at his work too powerful not to join in and say how awful it all is.

I tend to agree. There is a level of snobbery surrounding literature that only good deconstruction can subvert. What constitutes "good" literature is subjective and subject to time and change. Pride and Prejudice was considered 18th Century 'chick-lit' in it's day... now it's university material. Same text... different context!!

Dan Brown is a sensational writer - by "sensational" I don't necessarialy mean good, I mean he writes to cause a sensation! His novels are quick moving, his chapters are short, they are very entertaining, easy to read and addictive - is that not the nutshell definition of "good" literature?

I have an MA in English Literature and I have tried several times to read the "epic" Ulysses - i tend to drift off into slumber after 5 pages... what does that say? And his work is "good" by all standards!!!

Eliot Rosewater

daithiocondun wrote: »

I have an MA in English Literature and I have tried several times to read the "epic" Ulysses - i tend to drift off into slumber after 5 pages... what does that say? And his work is "good" by all standards!!!

It says that his work isn't accessible, I suppose.

This whole debate of what constitutes "good" literature constantly crops up everywhere. One of the main problems is that some readers have got way too much pride to admit when they didn't "get" a book, or to admit they aren't good at reading (I'm not accusing you of this by the way ). They then turn to silly rhetoric. Yesterday, on another forum, I saw the Nobel Prize for Literature described as nothing more than a "group of snobs getting together." That's bloody petty.

So this is my point. Some books can be extremely hard to appreciate. I wouldn't even go near Ulysess for the next few years. Is that a reflection of James Joyce? Not really. It means he isn't accessible, yeah, but thats about it. It's mainly a reflection of me as a reader. I couldn't appreciate Great Gatsby at the time I read it, for example, because I wasn't a good enough reader to "decipher" it.


I don't approve of the "sneerers" either, for what its worth. You have to judge books by what they are and what they are aiming to be.

Eoin

I don't think I'm being snobby. I just think that if you compare him to other authors in his own or similar genres, he is poor.

It's not the sensationalism or people saying he dresses fiction up as fact - it's just that I find the actual writing and dialogue etc really, really crap. I would think the same if I had picked up his book in an airport for my holiday without having heard any of the hype.

Eliot Rosewater

eoin wrote: »

I don't think I'm being snobby. I just think that if you compare him to other authors in his own or similar genres, he is poor.

When I said "I don't approve of the "sneerers" either, for what its worth" I wasn't referring to you or anyone else here. I dont think Cunsiderthis was either. I think you articulated your criticism of Brown pretty well. You certainly have a lot more experience with the genre than I do.

The "sneerers" are those who dismiss all kinds of books that aren't "literary" off-hand.

daithiocondun

eoin wrote: »

I don't think I'm being snobby. I just think that if you compare him to other authors in his own or similar genres, he is poor

I didn't for a second think you were being snobby! My apologies I was also referring to those who consider all popular literature as crap. I agree with Eliot Rosewater. There are times in our lives when one book can seem endlessly unfruitful and other times when the same text might seen wonderful.

However, as for The Great Gatsby... I still think it's awful! Sorry!!

Aids By Google

I have listened to most of his books/audio books and most of them are like "Blockbusters" of the book world. Kind of like Hollywood productions but for the ears All the key elements are there and importantly a lot of people enjoy them.

Depending on a persons interests I'd happily recommend most of his books, along with Harlen Coben.

Monkeybonkers

Dades wrote: »

Because sometimes we want to be mindlessly entertained not educated.

I would agree with this. I read DVC when it came out and found it entertaining. I don't think I'd read this type of book now though as the genre doesn't really appeal to me any more. I'm pretty open minded when it comes to books i.e. I would read anything (except maybe romance) and I think you have to take each genre for what it is. Brown is a populist writer and so I wouldn't expect any work of literary greatness from him. Then again who am I to say that his books aren't lirerary greats? My point I suppose is that every opinion is subjective and nobody can tell you that a book is good or bad, they can only offer their own opinion on it.
So OP, if you enjoy this type of book then read away. Nobody can tell you that you're wrong to do it and if they do......... f**k 'em!
__________________