Dan Brown: why the hate?

[jimbob]

The riddles. The motherloving riddles? How can you not be insulted by how stupid they are? It's the kind of riddles you get in a Christmas Cracker, only dumber. The kind of riddles that would momentarily confuse a newborn crack-kitten. For about a second.

I thought the riddles were probably a key feature of what made the book popular.

Like the old joke:

"When I'm with Umberto I feel that he's the cleverest person in the world."
"Why are you with Dan then?"
"Because, when I'm with him, I feel that I'm the cleverest person in the world."

The alternative, that people find the puzzles interesting challenging, is just too depressing for words.

I will, however, put this example in a spoiler on the offchance that someone does. I remember that most of the puzzles were about this difficult, but I have forgotten most of them.

How long does it take the characters to find out about mirror writing?

I'm just glad that I just saw the book in the library when it came out, so I didn't spend any money or much time on it.

Yes I did finish reading it because it wasn't bad enough that I actually stopped reading, just bad enough that I won't read any ore of his books*



*unless stuck somewhere with no other reading matter.

 

[jimbob]

I came to dislike him when I found that all his books were the same. The bad guy isn't who you thought, it was the good friend you never suspected!

And some of his "twists" are extremely contrived. In one book, he spends a chapter killing a person without saying who that person is. It was dumb.

Apparently they tend to start in the same way, too:

Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence



From another article on the same site:

You may remember that in my earlier post Don't look at their eyes! I mentioned that in preparing to read Dan Brown's Digital Fortress I was expecting a novel about cryptanalysis, probably one in which on the first page a renowned male expert at something dies a hideous death and straight away a renowned expert at something quite different gets a surprise call and has to take an unexpected plane flight and then face some 36 hours of astoundingly dangerous and exhausting adventures involving a good-looking (and of course expert) member of the opposite sex and when the two of them finally get access to a double bed she disrobes and tells him mischievously (almost minatorily) to prepare himself for strenuous sex. Well, a renowned male expert at something (cryptography) does indeed die a hideous death on the first page, and a renowned expert in something else (foreign languages) does indeed then get a surprise call to face an unexpected plane flight and some 36 hours of astoundingly dangerous and exhausting adventures (though he has to do it without the company of the good-looking (and of course expert) member of the opposite sex; there is one, but she stays three thousand miles away across the Atlantic).

There is of course a ghastly sadistic foreign hit man (an obligatory ingredient for a Dan Brown; this one is Portuguese, but otherwise just another mysterious cold-blooded death machine like the Arab in Angels and Demons). The happy couple do get access to a double bed at the end and do have strenuous sex, and there are some pretend threats from the female. So no real surprises at all.

In short, to call this novel formulaic is an insult to the beauty and diversity of formulae.

So from that, if you want a (pretty confusing) book about cryptoanalysis then Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson fitted the bill for me. I got to page 900 without knowing where it was going, but I was enjoying the ride.

There is one rather bizarre wierdness to this this book, which seems out of place, but it is a key component of the book and which is why the book is actually Science Fiction.

He later wrote Quicksilver which explains this aspect of the book.

ETA:

Discovering the philosopher's stone is still less implausible than the albino monkish assassin.

 

[luchog]

I got three words: albino priest assassin. I mean, come on.

Seriously. Hellsing already did it, and did it better.

 

[Travis]

Thanks to the demarcation problem of art, there is no such thing as a 'genuine artist'. One man's art is another man's garbage.

Really this is what I wanted to get at. I've encountered some that think appreciating or not appreciating certain things as "art" is some kind of reflection of that persons intelligence/sophistication. That really is the attitude that I'm fighting against. I hated, and I mean hated, Wuthering Heights but I won't think less of someone who enjoyed it and got something out of it.

Personally, Pollock's work doesn't connect with me. Since I define art as the intentional use of a medium to communicate a concept or emotion, he was unsuccessful in my case. Others might not define it that way and see something different in it.

But the question is, did he know what he was doing? Was it skill or blind luck? Did his choice of medium and style successfully communicate something to others? Honestly I don't know, so can't comment.

I, personally, wouldn't presume to try. I'm reminded of a Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin breaks down what is and isn't "high art" via some dubious reasoning that did tend to mirror what one might see in some art criticism magazine.

I'm getting the feeling you're taking this rather personally, however. As if it comments on you. Your tastes are your tastes - if his work appeals to you, then great. I don't have to understand it.

I don't really. I just thought it might be something interesting to discuss. If I came off as combative it is only to try and illicit some more precise critiques.

I thought the use of the word 'hate' was something of an amusing hyperbole, but now I see you've taken it quite literally. I don't think anybody here 'hates' Dan Brown in a personal sense that would see them want to 'throw rotten vegetables' at his readers. What nonsense. For myself, I find it frustrating and bewildering that an unskilled writer can gain such popularity. It just emphasises a rather depressing social fact - there could well be very little correlation between the skill of a writer to effectively communicate and the reach of their work.

Athon

I actually wrote an essay in college that argued a writers job was to communicate a story and that how it is done is not so important. So long as that communication is accomplished then they have done their job. Now some here argue that Brown's writing is so defective that this capability, in that regard, is hampered and yet the public seems to be responding favorably to that. You might argue then that Brown may have stumbled on a way to communicate a story to some people who were previously unreachable. Or maybe not, I'm just speculating.

 

[hgc]

I actually wrote an essay in college that argued a writers job was to communicate a story and that how it is done is not so important. So long as that communication is accomplished then they have done their job.

My best and toughest English professor told the class that when we are writing our papers, she's not interested in explanations of what the writer was saying. Rather, it was our job to explain how the writer manipulates and forms the mind of the reader. Much harder to do, but wow, what an education.

 

[imjohn]

I think an Brown is a poor writer. Poorly constructed sentences, crappy dialogue, bad word choices.

He does know something about plotting though. Even though I dislike his writing when I have read his books he keeps me turning the pages.

 

[I Ratant]

I love that book. Show of hands in this thread: who has read and liked both Brown and Eco?

.
Eco yes, Brown, probably never will... read or like.

 

[I Ratant]

... I love the movie Ice Pirates, and people hate me for that. ...

.
That's the one with the "space herpes" running around the space ship?
Other than that, IDSTR anything about it.
There was another one out in that time, a space opera with a young Molly Ringwald. She MADE that movie, but other than being so much better than everything in it, that's all I remember about it.

 

[athon]

I, personally, wouldn't presume to try. I'm reminded of a Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin breaks down what is and isn't "high art" via some dubious reasoning that did tend to mirror what one might see in some art criticism magazine.

Anything can be broken down and analysed according to a definition. Agreeing on whether that definition fairly represents all people's opinion is the impossible task.

I actually wrote an essay in college that argued a writers job was to communicate a story and that how it is done is not so important. So long as that communication is accomplished then they have done their job.

I'd agree with that. Of course, a writer could string together random words as a poem without intending anything, and a person could enjoy reading it as those random words connect with something in their life. However I wouldn't argue this is communication.

Now some here argue that Brown's writing is so defective that this capability, in that regard, is hampered and yet the public seems to be responding favorably to that. You might argue then that Brown may have stumbled on a way to communicate a story to some people who were previously unreachable. Or maybe not, I'm just speculating.

Interesting speculation, however I doubt it's the case. For one thing, his success was not immediate, but rather relied on the reaching of a critical mass, ala Harry Potter (another book that wasn't an immediate success).

For another, there is no evidence that his writing style is itself what is appreciated. I've never heard anybody state their appreciation of tautologies, encyclopedic infodumps and contradictions within sentences. It appears most people who like Dan Brown like his work in spite of these things, conceding these flaws exist but that they like the story any way.

Athon

 

[Travis]

My best and toughest English professor told the class that when we are writing our papers, she's not interested in explanations of what the writer was saying. Rather, it was our job to explain how the writer manipulates and forms the mind of the reader. Much harder to do, but wow, what an education.

Yes, the class I wrote that for was just like that as well. A very hard class but one I learned an awful lot from. One of our assignments was to rewrite one authors piece of work in the style of another author. I rewrote Kafka's The Starvation Artist in the style of Philip K Dick. I wasn't particularly happy with the result but I got a B on it.

Interesting speculation, however I doubt it's the case. For one thing, his success was not immediate, but rather relied on the reaching of a critical mass, ala Harry Potter (another book that wasn't an immediate success).

For another, there is no evidence that his writing style is itself what is appreciated. I've never heard anybody state their appreciation of tautologies, encyclopedic infodumps and contradictions within sentences. It appears most people who like Dan Brown like his work in spite of these things, conceding these flaws exist but that they like the story any way.

Athon

Yeah, I'm not gonna contest that Brown owes his success to an effective media marketing campaign but I do wonder exactly why they chose to pump his work over someone else?

 

[athon]

Yeah, I'm not gonna contest that Brown owes his success to an effective media marketing campaign but I do wonder exactly why they chose to pump his work over someone else?

Yeah, good question. No idea. Although I am getting some interesting insights lately, having successfully gotten myself a literary agent and an interested publisher for my own stuff. It really is a hit-and-miss affair that seems to have more with vague feelings than a real eye for talent - and yes, I say that with my own stuff in mind, too. For instance, the manuscript I originally sent was loved by the agent for its writing style. I'd sent it to a contact of mine in a publishing house, and after about four months wait I only just heard back. Not interested, as they feel the market isn't there. Yet the agent's own contact in the same house felt the opposite and is keen to get me on board with something a little more adult focussed (the MS I sent was YA, in line with my day-to-day work).

This isn't uncommon. Matthew Reilly (similar bad quality, popular writer) couldn't get anybody interested at all, and so went vanity. He managed to get the book into one Sydney bookshop and had one of the Harper Collins publishing reps pick it up and like it enough to want to sell it.

So publishing isn't a popularity contest. It only takes one person in the right position to want to take a risk on you and invest the time and effort into marketing your stuff.

I'm starting to have a sneaking suspician that there simply aren't a lot of good writers who like to write simple, high action plot lines that appeal to that market. That's not to say they're absent, but rather the better the quality of writer, the more depth their stories tend to have.

Romance fiction has its pick of the litter, so to speak, and therefore can be damn strict about the quality. I have it on good authority that although much romance fiction is cheesy and cliche, the quality of writing has to be very precise. In other words, in spite of my not liking the stuff, I happen to have a of respect for romance writers, as they must have excellent writing skills. Perhaps the same can't be said for action?

Athon

 

[joobz]

I saw a NBC show where they were interviewing Dan Brown. He acted as though he was presenting some super secret. I couldn't tell if he was being tounge in cheek or really believed his own nonsense.

 

[BNRT]

And who is this Eco? I feel entirely out of the loop.

Eco is a writer with a huge library and a complex language at his fingertips, which he both flings at you from every page.

Brown also has a huge library and a complex language at his fingertips, but instead ignores those and flings something else at you from every page.

 

[hgc]

Eco is a writer with a huge library and a complex language at his fingertips, which he both flings at you from every page.

While his Foucault's Pendulum is the great novel that touches on the topic of this thread, I always recommend The Name of the Rose, which is among the most interesting novels I've ever read. It's a murder mystery with a clever Franciscan detective, but it's also a thorough microcosm of the conflicts of 14th century Europe: the scism in the church, the political struggles in the Holy Roman Empire, the Franciscans vs the Benedictines, the theology of the poverty of Christ, the inquisition, and so much more come together in the confines of a monestary in northern Italy with a famous library.

 

[Travis]

I'm starting to have a sneaking suspician that there simply aren't a lot of good writers who like to write simple, high action plot lines that appeal to that market. That's not to say they're absent, but rather the better the quality of writer, the more depth their stories tend to have.

Athon

That is an interesting hypothesis. I wonder if it is similar to a lament I have with Hollywood action films where the good/nuanced directors seem to gravitate towards suspense/thrillers/biopics and as such the action films generally get left to music video hacks leaving us with precious few action films that have any depth or artistry to them.

 

[fitzgibbon]

hgc,

How would you rate the film version of "The Name of the Rose" as compared with the novel?

 

[hgc]

hgc,

How would you rate the film version of "The Name of the Rose" as compared with the novel?

Very good movie and no complaints. But of course it only tells a portion of the story that the book tells, as is the nature of these things.

 

[Shrike]

At one point in the Code, one of the character who is a cryptographer take 2 pages to find out that a particular cryptic message is in fact simply written backward. Not only such a trick is immediately obvious to anyone with a IQ in the three digits, but to even suggest that a crytographer would miss something like that?

Well to be fair to DB, this could be down to what I call 'expert's disease'. Wit which I mean, you are so deep into your field of expertise that you skip over the easy solutions to go to the difficult ones. Maybe even thinking that no, the solution cannot be that simple. I know, I've done this myself

Very good movie and no complaints. But of course it only tells a portion of the story that the book tells, as is the nature of these things.

I enjoyed both thorougly. Saw the movie first, than read the book.

 

[athon]

Well to be fair to DB, this could be down to what I call 'expert's disease'. Wit which I mean, you are so deep into your field of expertise that you skip over the easy solutions to go to the difficult ones. Maybe even thinking that no, the solution cannot be that simple. I know, I've done this myself

A clever writer would have exploited that. For instance, you could still have a blindingly obvious solution that eluded the protagonist, and simply establish pity for the character. As you've said, many people have been in a similar situation of expert's blindness, where a simple solution is overlooked because it is too basic. The character would be seen as more sympathetic, allowing for good contact between the reader and the protagonist.

There's nothing wrong with having such things in a story such as mirror-writing codes. What is poor with DB's writing is that he doesn't seem to recognise the nature of his own writing and what it says about the narrative.

Athon

 

[arthwollipot]

Hey, I remember Encyclopedia Brown!