Quote:
Originally Posted by Penforhire
Dan Brown is the poster child for this. I mostly enjoy his books but I have to overlook endless heinous writing issues that were noted in the other Dan Brown thread. His books would not be worse if they were written better. They would be, um, better. I'm not talking about using words that John Q Public won't follow so the books would be just as popular, if not more so.
So I disagree with the OP's premise. Yes, a popular book can be poorly written. Language (English) evolves. I get that. But at any particular time there is an acceptable standard that should be maintained unless you are actively bucking the standard, such as Cormac McCarthy. Dan Brown isn't blazing new trails. He is lazy.
|
Groan -Dan Brown novels are so awful! This is one case where the movies were much better, at least they were only light adventure stories and we didn't have to sit through the dreadful hack writing. The novels by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child are in a similar genre but they seem to hold the readers' interest to the end. I don't mind thrilling adventure/spooky stories for light read, but the writing shouldn't distract from the story.