The key to Dan Brown’s success

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Wonder how many people read Dan Brown just to learn about the standards of "good" or "bad" writing, given the amount of critical attention he gets.

I mean there are lots of great ways to think of bad writing. It can be obtuse, redundant, repetitive, contrived, verbose, sparse, and a bunch of other adjectives. Sometimes a writer can roll more than one of these into an indigestible literary omelet...I wonder how Mr. Brown fares.

Look at most of my long posts, and you'll see just how bad some writing can be hehe

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Wonder how many people read Dan Brown just to learn about the standards of "good" or "bad" writing, given the amount of critical attention he gets.

I have to admit, I'm tempted to pick it up and go through it just to see what people think of as "bad", though a link posted earlier gave me a few clues.

I mean there are lots of great ways to think of bad writing. It can be obtuse, redundant, repetitive, contrived, verbose, sparse, and a bunch of other adjectives. Sometimes a writer can roll more than one of these into an indigestible literary omelet...I wonder how Mr. Brown fares.

Burp!

The first thing that pops to mind is how easily everyone can come and go at the Louvre at any hour of the day or night. Why did I pay admission, when all I really had to do was walk in and claim to be some sort of special decoder person?

The next thing you wonder is if anyone didn't figure out that "Princess" Sofie was supposed to be the "special" one by page 3 or so?

Finally, you think how creepy it is that the old grandpa picked out the nerdish symbologist for his granddaughter, and that it is very much creepy inbreeding, much like with thoroughbreds and hillbillies.

Then you belch again and your brain threatens bodily harm if you ever read anything like this to it ever again.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Burp!

The next thing you wonder is if anyone didn't figure out that "Princess" Sofie was supposed to be the "special" one by page 3 or so?

Finally, you think how creepy it is that the old grandpa picked out the nerdish symbologist for his granddaughter, and that it is very much creepy inbreeding, much like with thoroughbreds and hillbillies.

DOH! You've ruined it!! I have yet to read it!! Oh, how will I ever get through the day?!

[columbus]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I like that comparison to Umberto Eco. I read both authors and while Eco certainly has more depth he is also MUCH more difficult to read.
As far as the public is concerned, I expect Brown's success comes from pandering to the lowest common denominator. He spoon feeds us the plot, similar to mainstream movies. It won't fly over the heads of the common man. No chance of missing a key observation. His guns are smoking heavily and his guilty hands are painted bright red.

Having posted this thread I am amazed by the high number of responses. I have posted elsewhere that with my advancing years I read now to be entertained which for me Brown achieves, I find it tiring to follow a complicated 'trendy' plot which leaves me hungry..

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Wonder how many people read Dan Brown just to learn about the standards of "good" or "bad" writing, given the amount of critical attention he gets.

I have to admit, I'm tempted to pick it up and go through it just to see what people think of as "bad", though a link posted earlier gave me a few clues.

I mean there are lots of great ways to think of bad writing. It can be obtuse, redundant, repetitive, contrived, verbose, sparse, and a bunch of other adjectives. Sometimes a writer can roll more than one of these into an indigestible literary omelet...I wonder how Mr. Brown fares.

What is good or bad writing? How do you judge? I think Dan brown's work lacks much, but who is the millionaire writer here (wish I was!!). You can be a good writer & poor or a 'bad' writer and a millionaire - which would you rather be?

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

Look at most of my long posts, and you'll see just how bad some writing can be hehe

Everyone's got some pet peeves when it comes to writing. I've got two myself that irritate me.

A) contrived description. The show-don't-tell ideal gets stretched quite a bit. Most days I'd rather get "his face was slightly bleeding again" than "lazy rivulets of crimson lifeblood crept hesitatingly from the freshly reopened wound between his flat bulbous nose and small, deeply-set eyes that shone with brilliance and down the scar-laden texture of his experienced, leathery cheek".

B) "artificial semantic density". I got sick of reading and writing in the pretentious scholarship mode some time ago, and never really cared for the way many academics would follow formulaic field-specific conventions to intentionally convolve and complicate their writing to gain credibility.

Of course, other people adore those things, and hate terse, direct, vernacular methods of writing.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Everyone's got some pet peeves when it comes to writing. I've got two myself that irritate me.

A) contrived description. The show-don't-tell ideal gets stretched quite a bit. Most days I'd rather get "his face was slightly bleeding again" than "lazy rivulets of crimson lifeblood crept hesitatingly from the freshly reopened wound between his flat bulbous nose and small, deeply-set eyes that shone with brilliance and down the scar-laden texture of his experienced, leathery cheek".

B) "artificial semantic density". I got sick of reading and writing in the pretentious scholarship mode some time ago, and never really cared for the way many academics would follow formulaic field-specific conventions to intentionally convolve and complicate their writing to gain credibility.

Of course, other people adore those things, and hate terse, direct, vernacular methods of writing.

Just as a humourous observations... the two bolded sentences (the first which you say you detested, and the second you posted as a thought process) are quite similar in scope. *blah blah blah*

Now for the serious point... I quite agree. Short and sweet is very most often the best choice. Or maybe, simply, a fine line between the two.

In noir novels, they are filled with long descriptions, followed by very short observations. "The bright flare of the streetlamp through the half-open window played havoc with the scotch-induced buzzing of my migraine. The night was chill."

[Abecedary]

griffonwing, I believe the sentence in part B was written that way to further enforce the point. I may be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

griffonwing, I believe the sentence in part B was written that way to further enforce the point. I may be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.

Or maybe I was being ambiguous. It's 3am here anyways

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Or maybe I was being ambiguous. It's 3am here anyways

Ooooh! I did that last night! I was here at work until 4am, went home, slept, got back here at 9:45

fun times.

[corinthian]

I think it's just that Dan Brown is such an easy and visible target. If he were less, and his books were less well-known but equally well-liked by his fans, there'd be a lot less vitriol from his detractors. Only part of it is due to his quality as a writer. Another part is the group that stands to one side, shaking their heads in disbelief, asking themselves 'why do people read this?' or 'how does a book like this this move over eighty million copies?'

I finished two of Dan Brown's novels, and at least enjoyed their ambition and pace. I've read a lot worse. For example I found a paperback of 'The Pelican Brief' on the train last year and was furious with myself for finishing it.

I taught at an Opus Dei school in the wake of 'the Da Vinci Code' and the way it got the church's hackles up reminded me of the aftermath of Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses'. So I did at least find it a stimulating time, for which I thank Mr Brown.

There's plenty more to come. From Wikipedia: 'Brown has stated that he has ideas for about 12 future books featuring Robert Langdon', and it looks like his next book is going to be a hatchet job on the freemasons. Probably with ninjas.

[Barcey]

I listened to his books as audio books and his writing style worked well for that medium.

It's also good beach reading because it's easy to pickup the story after distractions.

Oh and I just hate it when fiction writers don't fact check.

[animedude01]

Most of the popular book market read for escapism and want something easy to read but also gets you into the story. Dan Brown's books do that. I've read 2 and think they're acceptable, but for most of my reading, I'm not expecting world class literature

A lot of a popular figures popularity has to do with crowd psychology. When your neighbors (or anyone in your social group) are reading him and think he's good, you'll rate him higher. That's just psychology at work. Dan Brown isn't any better or worse than thousands of other authors, he just happened to be at the right place and the right time to get popular.

As for critics, their sole reason for existence is to criticize. If they liked everything, they'd soon be out of a job

I don't pay any attention to critics as I have yet to find one that matches my tastes. I read Amazon reviews, and since I found MR, I read MR reviews and find users that match my tastes. So far, MR wins hands down.

[bookfiend]

My two cents:

I read "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" because I wanted to give the author a fair chance. I hated them because I thought they were just very poorly written (kudos to the poster who linked to the posts in "The Language Log").

One thing that people forget about writing is that it depends on a set of tools; we give these the general name of "language." And, just as we'd be unhappy with a surgeon who didn't know how to use a scalpel, or a mechanic who couldn't tell one wrench from another, there's no reason to be satisfied with a writer who doesn't know how to use vocabulary or punctuation.

This doesn't mean that books have to be all "deep" or "serious" in order to be good. They just have to be crafted with care and precision. I'm a literature prof., and happen to think that Stephen King is a master of his craft; I recommend his book "On Writing" to all my students.

So it's not a matter of being a snob; for me, it's the decision to not read books by someone who doesn't know how to use the tools of his trade.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by bookfiend

....
One thing that people forget about writing is that it depends on a set of tools; we give these the general name of "language." And, just as we'd be unhappy with a surgeon who didn't know how to use a scalpel, or a mechanic who couldn't tell one wrench from another, there's no reason to be satisfied with a writer who doesn't know how to use vocabulary or punctuation.

This doesn't mean that books have to be all "deep" or "serious" in order to be good. They just have to be crafted with care and precision. ...

Yes. You're absolutely right. And... if it's worth doing something, it's worth doing it well. Writing is a craft as well as an art, and even if one isn't an artist, one can at least try to learn the craft. Besides, 90% of art is the craft

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by bookfiend

One thing that people forget about writing is that it depends on a set of tools; we give these the general name of "language." And, just as we'd be unhappy with a surgeon who didn't know how to use a scalpel, or a mechanic who couldn't tell one wrench from another, there's no reason to be satisfied with a writer who doesn't know how to use vocabulary or punctuation....So it's not a matter of being a snob; for me, it's the decision to not read books by someone who doesn't know how to use the tools of his trade.

I'm not sure I entirely agree.

I'm not in a position to judge whether a surgeon wields a scalpel with an impressive flourish or not - I judge them on the outcome of their work, not how they achieved it.
If a writer creates a (for me) gripping story, with fascinating characters inhabiting a fully realised world; I don't care how many 'rules' they broke to do it.

(I'm not claiming that Dan Brown achieved that as far as I'm concerned.)