Originally posted by silver_tears
It can't be cliche if it's historically based 🤨
[/spoiler]Maybe it's just me though 👀
it is historically fiction
the book is filled with cliche characters for one.
'The novel moves rapidly from cliche to cliche, is full of logical and psychological improbabilities and culminates in a saccharine denouement'
Dan Brown isn't on my top five writers but his novels are really entretaining.
My favorite Dan Brown book was Digital Fortress, that book ruled.
And anyone agrees that in Deception Point, Dan Brown should've wrote more about Gabrielle Ashe? I found her character fascinating.
And there's of course DVC, it was a really exciting book but I don't know I felt it was missing something. I liked A&D better actually, I loved the characters but I hated the end... it was unexpected and all but so... wrong.
So overall Dan Brown is a very good writer.
Anyone has any info on his upcoming book? Or, is there an upcoming book?
In terms of literary talent, Dan Brown is a retard. In terms of marketing, Dan Brown is a genius.
So many idiots have bought his book believing that they are buying something that is more than the crapola that Cussler and his ilk come out with, but in actual fact it's pure drivel. I feel sorry for the people who actually like his books, because they are obviously rather mentally retarded, too.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
In terms of literary talent, Dan Brown is a retard. In terms of marketing, Dan Brown is a genius.So many idiots have bought his book believing that they are buying something that is more than the crapola that Cussler and his ilk come out with, but in actual fact it's pure drivel. I feel sorry for the people who actually like his books, because they are obviously rather mentally retarded, too.
The book is written for someone with the reading age of a 16 year old. This is not hyperbole, but fact. If this is the level of your reading ability, then woo-hoo, have a field day! However, most people I know feel the same way in regards to the content of the crapola.
I'm purporting my opinion so that other high-minded fools like myself don't make the mistake of reading this garbage.
To the rest of you: I hear the Mister Men series have some killer twists in them!
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
In terms of literary talent, Dan Brown is a retard. In terms of marketing, Dan Brown is a genius.So many idiots have bought his book believing that they are buying something that is more than the crapola that Cussler and his ilk come out with, but in actual fact it's pure drivel. I feel sorry for the people who actually like his books, because they are obviously rather mentally retarded, too.
amen to that
The book is written for someone with the reading age of a 16 year old. This is not hyperbole, but fact. If this is the level of your reading ability, then woo-hoo, have a field day! However, most people I know feel the same way in regards to the content of the crapola.
thats an insult! im 16, i read it when i was 15 and even then i could see that his writing is shite!
i read angels and daemons when i was 8, at the time i thought it was amazing, so i think we can safely say these books should be put in the 8 - 12 sections of all bookstores
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The book is written for someone with the reading age of a 16 year old. This is not hyperbole, but fact. If this is the level of your reading ability, then woo-hoo, have a field day! However, most people I know feel the same way in regards to the content of the crapola.I'm purporting my opinion so that other high-minded fools like myself don't make the mistake of reading this garbage.
To the rest of you: I hear the Mister Men series have some killer twists in them!
Originally posted by PinstripePapaya
amen to thatthats an insult! im 16, i read it when i was 15 and even then i could see that his writing is shite!
i read angels and daemons when i was 8, at the time i thought it was amazing, so i think we can safely say these books should be put in the 8 - 12 sections of all bookstores
This is just the way it is, the books come out, everyone praises them "Smart book!" etc. And then when EVERYONE likes the book so people start saying it sucks just so they don't seem like everyone else.
Originally posted by Eis
What you're saying in this post is VERY different from what you said in your previous one.
I agree it's not Anna Karenina but it's certainly not a book for retards.
No, it isn't.
I think you have just proved that, in Dan Brown, you have found an author who writes according to your reading level. Although, an inability to understand two like-minded posts shows that perhaps a 16 year-old's reading level is too optimistic for you. Perhaps, PinstripePapaya is right; I over-estimated the level of difficulty by about 8 years...
Originally posted by Eis
This is just the way it is, the books come out, everyone praises them "Smart book!" etc. And then when EVERYONE likes the book so people start saying it sucks just so they don't seem like everyone else.
Oh, dear. People started saying it was a bad book after they read it. The ones above the previously mentioned reading level, that is...
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
No, it isn't.I think you have just proved that, in Dan Brown, you have found an author who writes according to your reading level. Although, an inability to understand two like-minded posts shows that perhaps a 16 year-old's reading level is too optimistic for you. Perhaps, PinstripePapaya is right; I over-estimated the level of difficulty by about 8 years...
Oh, dear. People started saying it was a bad book after they read it. The ones above the previously mentioned reading level, that is...
I actually don't mind the man (shock horror perhaps).
He cannot write very well at all; in fact I'd go as far as to say he writes poorly.
However, he is good at everything but writing. Oh, and adding an additional dimension to his characters' first one.
I figure he'd be more suited as a film director.
I think I enjoy them like I enjoy cream doughnuts, or someone getting hit on the side of the head with a football.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I actually don't mind the man (shock horror perhaps).
I am indeed surprised, and it forces me to re-evaluate your worth as a fellow I have previously enjoyed considering things with. Although, if you class it as a 'guilty pleasure', then all this trash talk will be swept under the rug. Otherwise...
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He cannot write very well at all; in fact I'd go as far as to say he writes poorly.However, he is good at everything but writing. Oh, and adding an additional dimension to his characters' first one.
First off, it would seem quite the inexpedient career path to follow if this is the case. However, considering his profitability, maybe not...
As for being 'good at everything else', what skills do you speak of? Admittedly, the premise of 'The Da Vinci Code' is an intriguing one, but after the first few chapters it plummets into the realm of crap-fiction. I thought the ending was especially atrocious and generic.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I figure he'd be more suited as a film director.
I feel 'The Da Vinci Code' will be more suited as a film than as a book, although perhaps this is because my taste in literature is more exclusive than my taste in movies; I am happy to enjoy a stupid movie, but I have little patience with a stupid book/author.
Each time you crave a donut, substitute it for an apple, and then eventually you'll prefer those. Someone getting hit on the side of the head with a football will always be entertaining though.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd FlooAs for being 'good at everything else', what skills do you speak of? Admittedly, the premise of 'The Da Vinci Code' is an intriguing one, but after the first few chapters it plummets into the realm of crap-fiction. I thought the ending was especially atrocious and generic.
Agreed. You'll see after taking away his writing and characterisation skills, I left him with little. Away from the irony though, he has the odd good idea, and is good at making trivia seem consequential. Hardly great accolades, but yes, a guilty pleasure.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd FlooI feel 'The Da Vinci Code' will be more suited as a film than as a book, although perhaps this is because my taste in literature is more exclusive than my taste in movies; I am happy to enjoy a stupid movie, but I have little patience with a stupid book/author.
Hence my director comment. I actually have no patience at all for bad films, because it's a period in which you have chosen to commit your time. Bad books, though, are always good for those moments when there's little else to do.
I feel that the book as a format can survive with its poorer exponents, just as music does.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Agreed. You'll see after taking away his writing and characterisation skills, I left him with little. Away from the irony though, he has the odd good idea, and is good at making trivia seem consequential. Hardly great accolades, but yes, a guilty pleasure.
Sometimes irony floats by my window and I mistake it for a feather. So, basically you are saying he's a poor writer and a poor humanist, but a mediocre dramatist. I'd agree with that, but how the devil does he sell so many books? Surely, after the hype has be recognised, the sales should slide away? However, no matter how many people I tell the book is bad, his sales continue...Perhaps this says more about my influence, though.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Hence my director comment. I actually have no patience at all for bad films, because it's a period in which you have chosen to commit your time. Bad books, though, are always good for those moments when there's little else to do.
I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that he would be good at controlling minions, rather than being a screenwriter. When I say 'stupid movies', I mean movies that are obviously trivial, but are still entertaining. 'Armageddon' is probably the best example of this 'awful entertainment'. I appreciate your value of time, but there is always the 'STOP' button.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I feel that the book as a format can survive with its poorer exponents, just as music does.
I'm rather obstinate when it comes to books. If I begin one, I generally finish it. The only time I just gave up was when I was about half-way through 'Glamorama'. I just couldn't stand the character who was the subject of the first-person narative - obviously, this was Ellis' intention, but f*ck him. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I can read a crap book, but after completing it, I consider it as a whole rather than the sum of each part. It is this method that led me to hating 'The Da Vinci Code'.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that he would be good at controlling minions, rather than being a screenwriter. When I say 'stupid movies', I mean movies that are obviously trivial, but are still entertaining. 'Armageddon' is probably the best example of this 'awful entertainment'. I appreciate your value of time, but there is always the 'STOP' button.
I often exercise the function of that button, that's what I meant. I didn't necessarily mean screenwriting, I meant the sense of a work that directors usually bring to their films. It seems to me he would be more suited to that kind of role than actually executing the writing portion.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I'm rather obstinate when it comes to books. If I begin one, I generally finish it. The only time I just gave up was when I was about half-way through 'Glamorama'. I just couldn't stand the character who was the subject of the first-person narative - obviously, this was Ellis' intention, but f*ck him. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I can read a crap book, but after completing it, I consider it as a whole rather than the sum of each part. It is this method that led me to hating 'The Da Vinci Code'.
Fair enough. I had a similar experience reading Ennui by Maria Edgeworth.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
No, it isn't.I think you have just proved that, in Dan Brown, you have found an author who writes according to your reading level. Although, an inability to understand two like-minded posts shows that perhaps a 16 year-old's reading level is too optimistic for you. Perhaps, PinstripePapaya is right; I over-estimated the level of difficulty by about 8 years...
Oh, dear. People started saying it was a bad book after they read it. The ones above the previously mentioned reading level, that is...
It is, you first said flat-out anyone who likes Dan Brown is mentally retarded, then you said the books are for someone with a reading age of 16. If you can't see the difference I'm afraid it's you the one who's mentally retarded.
Like-minded? No, the first post was an extremely immature exaggeration, the next post was a believable opinion.
And yeah maybe I am someone with a reading age of a 16 year old, after all I am 14.
And no they didn't, the 'persecution' started after a while. And I'm not saying there weren't people who hated it as soon as they read the book.