Dan Brown's new book out today!

[citoyen]

I'm tempted to buy his new book. I'm a sick sick man.

Read this instead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10049454/Dont-make-fun-of-renowned-Dan-Brown.html

[Kathy]

I'm tempted to buy his new book. I'm a sick sick man.

Read this instead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10049454/Dont-make-fun-of-renowned-Dan-Brown.html

I haven't read Dan Brown for nearly ten years. That article reminded me as to why. 

[Euan Uzami]

I'll probably buy and read it - I'm quite thick, really, when it comes to literature, I fail to understand complex highbrow novels where you have to read between the lines to imbibe the deeper meaning or appreciate the confusing metaphors that you find in so many books.
I can tolerate the lack of strong characters or building of atmosphere, and the unrealisticness, for the fact that something actually happens on most pages.
It might be fairly shallow but it's quite pompous really to suggest there's anything wrong with a shallow but happening story that's easy to read, rather than having to flick back and forth constantly to work out who's who.

[pcolbeck]

There's nothing wrong with a shallow adventure story that's easy to read and that's not why people pick on Dan Brown. They aren't having a go because it's not high brow literature but rather because his writing style is just so awful.  If he made up the stories and got someone else to write the prose it would be a lot better as he is very good at the page turner bit.

[Euan Uzami]

I didn't notice that when I read his other books, so it must be something that's too ... stylistic, for me to appreciate.
What's an example of a piece of prose with an "awful writing style" then, and what would be a better way of putting it?

Strikes me as a bit like the wine buff thing. Don't become like Jilly Goolden because then you'll only like expensive wine and it'll cost you more.

[citoyen]

Renowned author Dan Brown's writing style is characterised by a preponderance of unnecessary adjectives and overuse of "elegant variation". He suffers from the erroneous notion that an excess of superficial detail passes for character analysis. There is no variation to his sentence structure. The metaphors he uses, often mixed, are nearly always clichés. He uses them in clumsy and often inappropriate ways.

It's not being "highbrow" that marks good writing from bad. Try some Ernest Hemingway or F Scott Fitzgerald to see what can be achieved with a very simple writing style.

[ian]

I believe I have passed comment on the literary titan that is Dan Brown before. Sure, the plots are nonsensical, the writing awkward, the characters implausible, but he does pull off a good, pacey yarn that evidently gets people reading. I can't begrudge that, I like to see people reading (providing it's not a really old man reading 50 Shades of Blah in 72 pt type on his Kindle in the airplane seat next to me, I don't want to spend the next eight hours in close contact with a geriatric perv, ta). It's easy to take cheap shots, but it's like the kind of people who chase you down the street telling you they don't have a TV you know, that they only listen to Radio 4, and oh hasn't it dumbed down lately. Yeah, yeah, I understand, you're one of the smart kids, no need to go on about it.

To be honest though, he always needed an editor to pare down the awful style and correct the rather obvious errors. Preferably with a chainsaw. Someone ought to tell him to stop trying and keep it lean. Verbs and nouns, I believe, would be safe territory. Someone should sneak any and all adjectives out of the room when he's not looking, for their own good. A kind of descriptive underground railway. Free them from the tyranny. There's no need to describe everything in clunking detail.

Mind you, I write about vampires, robots, and all those dead people you buried in the woods and thought no one knew about. I'm not expecting my Man Booker any time soon.

[citoyen]

he does pull off a good, pacey yarn that evidently gets people reading. I can't begrudge that, I like to see people reading (providing it's not a really old man reading 50 Shades of Blah in 72 pt type on his Kindle in the airplane seat next to me, I don't want to spend the next eight hours in close contact with a geriatric perv, ta). It's easy to take cheap shots, but it's like the kind of people who chase you down the street telling you they don't have a TV you know, that they only listen to Radio 4, and oh hasn't it dumbed down lately. Yeah, yeah, I understand, you're one of the smart kids, no need to go on about it.

Totally agree with all that. However, I also more or less agree with one of the comments on that Telegraph piece, viz:

"It's like junk food - an easy choice, but not much nourishment.  Excessive consumption may be harmful."

I have no aversion to "low" culture, as anyone would know who observed my TV viewing choices over a brief period, but a mixed diet is required for overall good health.

And you know, much as I love a good meaty bit of James Joyce, I read an awful lot more PG Wodehouse. I reject any accusations that my dislike of Dan Brown is down to some kind of snobbery.

[pcolbeck]

He's obviously not a stupid man so you do have to wonder if he's doing it deliberately.

[ian]

he does pull off a good, pacey yarn that evidently gets people reading. I can't begrudge that, I like to see people reading (providing it's not a really old man reading 50 Shades of Blah in 72 pt type on his Kindle in the airplane seat next to me, I don't want to spend the next eight hours in close contact with a geriatric perv, ta). It's easy to take cheap shots, but it's like the kind of people who chase you down the street telling you they don't have a TV you know, that they only listen to Radio 4, and oh hasn't it dumbed down lately. Yeah, yeah, I understand, you're one of the smart kids, no need to go on about it.

Totally agree with all that. However, I also more or less agree with one of the comments on that Telegraph piece, viz:

"It's like junk food - an easy choice, but not much nourishment.  Excessive consumption may be harmful."

I have no aversion to "low" culture, as anyone would know who observed my TV viewing choices over a brief period, but a mixed diet is required for overall good health.

And you know, much as I love a good meaty bit of James Joyce, I read an awful lot more PG Wodehouse. I reject any accusations that my dislike of Dan Brown is down to some kind of snobbery.

It wasn't really aimed at you, our posts just happened to cross. It's OK not to like Dan Brown books, but I think a lot of that dislike is reflexive, intellectual snobbery. It's an easy target, like shooting fish in a barrel with a howitzer. Of course, that's fun, and if I'm ever in possession of a howitzer, a barrel, and ample fish, you can bet there's going to be an almighty splash soon afterwards.

I draw a parallel with TV. I have no time at all for the majority of it, I've rather pull off my limbs that watch reality TV, a talent show, or any soap opera. But that's just me. I don't have to watch it. I'm not sure the junk food analogy fits, at the end of the day all that junk food with result in arterial traffic jams and a detour to the big house in the sky, whereas junk books and TV will just make you grin and give up a few IQ points that you probably weren't going to need anyway.

Some people obviously have brains like a temple to intellect. Others have brains that resemble the Kraft Cheese Food Factory. The world needs both. Mmm, cheese food product.

[citoyen]

He's obviously not a stupid man so you do have to wonder if he's doing it deliberately.

I recall from an interview I read some time ago that his sole motivation is to make lots of money. Fair play to him for succeeding in that.

[Exit Stage Left]

I'd agree with this definition of the Airport Novel.

An airport novel must necessarily be superficially engaging, while not being particularly profound or philosophical, or at least, without such content being necessary for enjoyment of the book. The reader is not a person alone, in a quiet setting, contemplating deep thoughts or savouring fine writing; the reader is being jostled and penned among strangers, and seeks distraction from the boredom and inconveniences of travel. Similarly, the reader is not in a position to consult reference works, scholarly papers, or the author's previous works. The writer of an airport novel must meet the needs of readers in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_novel

I usually ended up buying a big popular history book at the airport, I'm not drawn along by plot, so I like free-standing chapters. If I'm bored by one bit I can go to another, and return later. At Gatwick recently I found that the Waterstones had gone, and WH Smith now only sells the top 50 titles. The selection of periodicals has also become restricted.

[Euan Uzami]

Totally agree with all that. However, I also more or less agree with one of the comments on that Telegraph piece, viz:

"It's like junk food - an easy choice, but not much nourishment.  Excessive consumption may be harmful."

I have no aversion to "low" culture, as anyone would know who observed my TV viewing choices over a brief period, but a mixed diet is required for overall good health.

That's all very well making that comparison, but you don't actually get fat from reading "unhealthy" books.

Renowned author Dan Brown's writing style is characterised by a preponderance of unnecessary adjectives and overuse of "elegant variation". He suffers from the erroneous notion that an excess of superficial detail passes for character analysis. There is no variation to his sentence structure. The metaphors he uses, often mixed, are nearly always clichés. He uses them in clumsy and often inappropriate ways.

It's not being "highbrow" that marks good writing from bad. Try some Ernest Hemingway or F Scott Fitzgerald to see what can be achieved with a very simple writing style.

Ok, that's a good explanation thanks for taking the time to explain.


(Only on account of the fact that

[he makes] lots of money.

I'd argue that HE doesn't suffer from it, YOU do )

[citoyen]

That's all very well making that comparison, but you don't actually get fat from reading "unhealthy" books.

Tbh, on reflection, I'm not sure the junk food comparison holds - reading is more analagous to physical exercise: the more you do of it, and the more taxing the effort, the greater the benefits. Reading Dan Brown is great because it's reading, and all reading is good for you, but it's more of a gentle stroll or light jog than a sub-3hr marathon run.

Not everyone is interested in running a sub-3hr marathon. I get that. And it's fine. I enjoy a gentle stroll occasionally as much as anyone, but for me, reading Dan Brown would be about as pleasurable as going for a gentle stroll with a sharp stone in my shoe.

(Note that my criticism is very specifically of Dan Brown's writing, not of people who read him - nor of Dan Brown himself, for that matter. I'm sure he's a lovely chap.)

(Only on account of the fact that

[he makes] lots of money.

I'd argue that HE doesn't suffer from it, YOU do )

Touché.

[geraldc]

With the Harry Potter novels, towards the end I was emotionally linked to some of the characters. This is definitely not the case with Dan Brown novels.

Within a minute of starting to read Angels and Demons I announced to everyone it was sh!t. 10 years, and thousands of pages later, and now reading my 4th Prof Langdon novel, I still think they're sh!t (albeit very entertaining), but I can't stop giving the man my money. It's the Illuminati you know, they control everything.

[Bledlow]

There's nothing wrong with a shallow adventure story that's easy to read and that's not why people pick on Dan Brown. They aren't having a go because it's not high brow literature but rather because his writing style is just so awful. 

That, & the fact that when The Da Vinci Code came out he dishonestly tried to sell it as being fictionalised reality, rather than pure fiction. I once heard him being interviewed, & questioned on exactly that point. He wriggled like a worm on a hook, trying to avoid admitting it was all nonsense, while not actually claiming outright any truthfulness. Not an easy line to stick to, & the interviewer had a field day.