Quote:
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..
Quote:
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?