Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I dislike Dan Brown's books as much as the next guy... but whoever wrote this^ is a knob.
but let's face it, just like with the Twilight series taking the piss out of them is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.
it's the really smug, guardianesque way it's done.
isn't anything new to be fair.
It's just a silly piece of irreverence.
The only thing I want to know about this new book is whether he's dropped the references to Langdon looking like Harrison Ford completely or changed them reference Tom Hanks. Or maybe he's just said, 'fuck casting', and kept them in?
I guess if you really like Dan Brown and thought he was a good writer they might but otherwise it's pretty funny. Yeah it's massively snobbish but sometimes that's okay.
But his stupid, wooden, clumsy prose just ruins it for me.
SPECIAL 8 PAGE PULLOUT.
"for if The Da Vinci Code taught us one thing, it is that two Dan Brown chapters plus a prologue do not an 8-PAGE PULLOUT fill."
"Professor Robert Langdon is back – this time, landing in Washington DC to visit his "longtime mentor Peter Solomon". He continues, in his "charcoal turtleneck, Harris Tweed jacket, khakis, and collegiate cordovan loafers" to bear more than a passing resemblance to his creator."
Langdon is such a Mary Sue.
The only experience of reading Dan Brown I've had was flicking through the first few chapters of 'Angels and Demons' after waking up at 4am with an urgent post-curry toilet requirement. My favourite part was reading the description of the protagonist, some university professor who could have had 'any woman on campus', but preferred to sit alone at night, with a glass of wine and a book.. of course, flicking to the bio, it indicated that Brown was a single university teacher, who enjoyed a fine wine - and, presumably, jotting down his egotistical flights of fancy?
Interestingly, this is almost identical to the description of the protagonist of Trevanian's Eiger Sanction - which was meant to be a spoof of this kind of character in novels.
But I quite like them
Admittedly they're all a bit (read: very) samey, but still nice enough junk books.
The ending of Angels and Demons was just stupid though.
Just the ending?
I don't get this. Junk media should at the very least be well made - that's how you get through them (see say, the movie Crank).
With Dan Browns, not only are the stories ridiculous, but he can't even be bothered to write them well. And that's not even touching on the many, many instances of critical research failure that litter his books.
the majority of people who read his books really care about the many many instances of critical research failure that litter his books. I don't, but maybe that makes me a thickie who knows. Yes they're not particularly well written, but they are also pure escapism, which for lots of people is why they pick up a book in the first place.
I think it's you who's missed the point: Mine was that it's fine if they're 'pure escapism', but they should at least do the reader the service of being well-written pure escapism (see my man Eric Van Lustbader for this).
Moreover, I already know Brown's researching abilities isn't particularly important (to my argument), which is why I didn't bother going into this aspect of his writing in my previous post. Since you bought it up however, it's worth noting that it's far more likely that the majority of people who read these books would never pick up that there are any research failures in his books because they've not done the research either. And because Brown is fond of passing off everything he writes as 'based on Fact', his readers then tend to pass off his mistakes as truth - which is annoying to those who have done the research, or who have experience or knowledge of the fields Brown writes about.
Furthermore, for other readers who come across an example of Dan Brown's lack of research, this has the same effect as what film critic Roger Ebert describes as a Clang: "a moment that breaks the fabric of a film with something that is impossible, illogical, tone-deaf, out of character, amateurish, or otherwise goes Clang!"
When you're reading a book and something goes CLANG, it has the effect of pulling you from the story and making you think about the aspect of the tale that's just gone wrong - this is always a bad thing no matter what kind of pure escapism it is.
I really have to bite my tongue. It's not so much the amount of people reading his books that annoys me (I agree with the above point about 'escapism') it's when they then bang on about how he's such a great writer. To anyone with half a brain that's clearly not the case.
It's like people who defend Transformers 2 because it's a bit of brainless fun, to which you can only point out that it might well be, but there are films/books that do that so much better.
What I do hear a lot though from people who have read Dan Brown and the Twilight books is how 'moreish' they are. Even though you may at times be thinking 'OK this is a bit daft' you just keep reading until you realise you've devoured the whole thing overnight.
That's if you even get back the first couple of pages.
[adjusts glasses] In what way?
I was just playing a joke on your joke.
*damn shit bollocks
Also: If he was really trying to protect my honour, he would have pointed out how the problem with that sentence up there wasn't with the construction - all the words were in the right order... even if one shouldn't have been there.
You two should sort this out behind the bike sheds. With flaming Illuminati brands.
I planning to sort your mum out behind the bike sheds.
^Now that's an immaculately constructed sentence.
I'm now concerned that Dan Brown has stumbled upon some kind of psychological trick to get people to read his books, a sort of literary heroin if you will. Which makes me think there may be more to the Dan Brown / Derren Brown thing than merely similar names....
and it makes me want to read the book. she's not telling anyone NOT to read the book, which would be far more annoying.