|
critics
It strikes me that many of the critics are probably the ones that picked out the high school english class books, which were totally hated by me and if I did not read other books before that it would have entirely turned me off to reading.
I think of Dan Brown as being alot like Clive Cussler, sure his books are outrageous and the situations in them are HIGHLY unlikely, yet are enjoyable escapism.
Do books have to have a deep literatary meaning? Sure some have one, but most don't.
I would say that Dan Brown writes well for his intended audience who like the way he explains things and even enjoy the fact that his writing style is more accessable than some of those "classic" books.
As for editing, has anyone read The Life of Pi? I thought that the author needed to go back to school and learn how to make a chapter, and that his editor needed to actually do his job. But my understanding is that this book was highly praised? Each person has their own idea of what is a good book.
Just look at movies, there are many serious movies that have deep intellectual value, but the market is flooded with simple, and yes often stupid, comedies because that is what people enjoy.
If only I could write as badly as Dan Brown I too could be a millionare!
Amy
|