Quote:
Originally Posted by Superlucky
I'm about a half the way in, so maybe I should withhold judgement, but I keep waiting for it to start. At this point in Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci COde I was rapt. I expected, as you say, "cardboard characters and unbelievable dialogue", but I expected an exciting plot and adept, vivid descriptions of art and architecture. So far it's just an annoying overuse of italics and mini-cliffhangers where the "cliffs" are so small you can step off them. *sigh*
|
Quote:
|
The New York Times can’t stop its gushing admiration. Though Maslin acknowledges some “authorial shortcomings,” Brown’s “splendid ability to concoct 64-square grids outweighs” them. And even though the characters speak pretty much exclusively in italics, that’s a “guilty pleasure[!]” Brown’s “sweet optimism” is catching, apparently, as Maslin doesn’t just critique the book, she extends her review to the book jacket (which she loves, in case you couldn’t tell). She’s fascinated by the art on the front and writes knowingly that we’re going to pick up a copy anyway. Well, yeah.
|
blogs.wsj
Quote:
|
The Washington Post is perhaps the only major newspaper less-than-impressed with Brown’s offering. Louis Bayard argues that “the Da Vinci template remains largely intact” and cites Brown’s “deficiencies as a stylist.” But, as he grudgingly admits, no one cares that Dan Brown can’t actually write well. Or that he’s probably Stephenie Meyer’s role model. For Bayard, Brown is “entertainment,” and nothing more.
|
As a sidenote: When I recently found a few scanned versions of books of Raymond Feist, I noticed that they were actually more pleasant in the reading because all of the italics had been removed from the book. When I looked at the same books on paper, I found it almost offensive to see how many words the author emphasized in order to explain the
subtler points of a passage, or stress the important word in a sentence.