Dan Brown: why the hate?

[Travis]

Okay, confession. I haven't read any of his books but I have seen both movies to date and really liked them both. However I see an awful lot of animus on here towards both the books and the films and I can't help wondering if this might be hate for one bleeding over into the other. If so, what is the reason for this hate? I found the films to be engaging, visually beautiful with great kinetic energy so the books must be truly horrible if someone lets that taint their experience of them so much. But the books are popular and I know several people who have read them that really liked them.

So what gives?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Thay're so badly written. He doesn't use much complexity. You could drive a bus through the plotholes. This is about his writing style. It gets old fast. Very fast. Plus his stories are insane.

 

[hgc]

For myself, I've never read his books, and I'm thinking I'll probably never get around to it. So, no hate here.

Haven't seen the movies either, but wouldn't mind catching one on TV sometime --just to see what the hoopla's about.

 

[Whiplash]

Thay're so badly written. He doesn't use much complexity. You could drive a bus through the plotholes. This is about his writing style. It gets old fast. Very fast. Plus his stories are insane.

So, it's pearls for swine then?

ETA: Not sure if I'm using that correctly. I just take it to mean that, unlike "Pears before swine" which implies that the swine cannot appreciate the pearls, is Browns work pearls that swine can actually appreciate? I just thought of this because his works are somewhat popular. I've not read any of them, so I don't know if he's a good writer or not. I'm just curious as well to the hatred the man gets. It seems to be that he writes to the lowest common denominator or something.

 

[332nd]

As mentioned his writing isn't exactly high art and the stories are out there, but then it's fiction and if one just wants a light action/suspense read (or film) it's fine. My problem with him is that he encourages the CT aspect of his books as if he's an insider trying to leak "the truth".

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thay're so badly written. He doesn't use much complexity. You could drive a bus through the plotholes. This is about his writing style. It gets old fast. Very fast. Plus his stories are insane.

And they're popular.

That's probably the thing that's most irksome, frankly. I've thought about this a lot. There are any number of similar bread-and-butter writers out there who produce the same sort of palp, and we just ignore them. This guy caught on, and not only did he catch on, he caught the sort of fervor you get from LOTR and Harry Potter fans. The difference being that no LOTR or HP fan ever tried to convince me that their fantasies were real, and Brown fans annoyingly swooned at his b.s. and tried to convert people.

"But it's based on real true stuff, man!"

 

[fullflavormenthol]

As mentioned his writing isn't exactly high art and the stories are out there, but then it's fiction and if one just wants a light action/suspense read (or film) it's fine. My problem with him is that he encourages the CT aspect of his books as if he's an insider trying to leak "the truth".

You beat me to it, but this is primarily why I disliked the books. It isn't about the books per se, but how they get promoted. I compare it to fictional stories about UFOs, ghosts and secret government conspiracies. They can be fun and entertaining, and I will watch them and enjoy them; it is when they are promoted as being true or partially true that I start to have issues.

That being said I feel the same about Dan Brown's work that I feel about the Twilight saga.

 

[quadraginta]

Thay're so badly written. He doesn't use much complexity. You could drive a bus through the plotholes. This is about his writing style. It gets old fast. Very fast. Plus his stories are insane.

Judged on their merits as masterworks of literary immortality I would agree. Judged as suspense potboilers suitable for a summer reading list I don't. They are certainly a cut or more above Clive Cussler novels, which have no trouble selling, and no one is accusing him of being the century's new Steinbeck or trying to dis him for a failure of comparison.

It's kinda like the food at the State Fair. If you're expecting haute cuisine you're gonna be disappointed. If you're expecting fair food then you're getting what you paid for.

 

[ArcturusA]

Brown's stuff isn't particularly well written, his plots aren't very complex and often full of holes, and the pacing can get very tiring.

BUT, the books are quite fun to read. I'd liken them to a movie on paper.

To run with that comparison, though, I'd say they're the equivalent of some of the more senseless action movies.
Sometimes, you want a complex web of intrigue and drama in a film. Sometimes you just want to see stuff get blown up by giant robots*.
Brown's books are for the latter times.

*Thank you, Michael Bay.

 

[Lucian]

Words are hard. You know how many words there are in the English language? Lots, that's how many. I mean, have you ever seen the Oxford English Dictionary in all its unabridged multi-volume glory? There are oodles and oodles of words. Imagine how difficult it would be to choose a selection of those words and arrange them into some sort of coherent form. Dan Brown proves just how unachievable such a task is.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well I disagree with just about everyone. I liked the books. I thought Angels and Demons was better than The Da Vinci Code, and I thought Deception Point was better than Digital Fortress.

As others have said, it's not exactly high art, but I found them quite reasonable light reading - I think I polished each one off in a couple of days.

If you ever find yourself with a little time to kill and you don't mind a bit of explosion-fuelled fluff, then yes, absolutely read them. If you want high art or deep philosophy, I recommend Umberto Eco instead.

 

[bluesjnr]

There seems to be some confusion over marketing and literary merit here.

 

[Ignorantbystander]

I don't see the point of hating Dan Brown either. I liked the books, as said before it's great for summer reading. I liked Da Vinci Code more then Angels and Demons because of the action movie ending of the latter. The movies may be not bad done but didn't even slightly amuse me.
As for Brown promoting conspiracy theories. Well, first of all it's up to the audience I think, to take his work as fiction or non-fiction. As for Brown not distanciating himself from the conspiracy-hype surrounding his novels by telling that it's all made up. Heck, what would you do if you were the author and the hype would get you on discovery channel, numerous tv shows and newspaper articles and thus selling you thousands more copies ?

 

[Amazer]

No hate from me either. Dan Browns books make for easy reading. Great while your travelling.

The one gripe I do have though is that all his story lines are so much alike.

 

[Jorghnassen]

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

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I like Lois Griffin's take on The da Vinci Code...

"The chapters are short, so you feel really smart when you read it." (paraphrased)

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well I disagree with just about everyone. I liked the books. I thought Angels and Demons was better than The Da Vinci Code, and I thought Deception Point was better than Digital Fortress.

As others have said, it's not exactly high art, but I found them quite reasonable light reading - I think I polished each one off in a couple of days.

If you ever find yourself with a little time to kill and you don't mind a bit of explosion-fuelled fluff, then yes, absolutely read them. If you want high art or deep philosophy, I recommend Umberto Eco instead.

Yep. There's nothing at all wrong with them if you take them as they are - easy, fun reads.

 

[Travis]

Okay, criticizing the way the books are written is one thing (my friends that liked them understood that they weren't to be taken as "true"). But what about the hate for the movies? I saw the films and liked them. The hate for them I can't really get.

 

[Richard Masters]

Well I disagree with just about everyone. I liked the books. I thought Angels and Demons was better than The Da Vinci Code, and I thought Deception Point was better than Digital Fortress.

As others have said, it's not exactly high art, but I found them quite reasonable light reading - I think I polished each one off in a couple of days.

If you ever find yourself with a little time to kill and you don't mind a bit of explosion-fuelled fluff, then yes, absolutely read them. If you want high art or deep philosophy, I recommend Umberto Eco instead.

Seconded. Though, I have yet to finish my first Umberto Eco novel.

 

[athon]

I don't hate Dan Brown. I don't know the man personally. I even share something with him - a love of writing.

My vitriol is aimed at the fact that poor writing is celebrated, often over good writing.

Let me clarify - I'm not talking about personal taste here, or subjective opinions. For instance, there are a good many books I've read in my time that weren't to my liking. I don't like romance, and have found these days that my old love of fantasy has vanished. I cannot stand sword and sorcery any more. I tried to read Richard Morgan's new series and just found it too hard going for my tastes.

Writers are to words what a blacksmith is to iron. Knowing what words mean, how they feel, how they sound...a skilled writer can paint a scene that inspires the reader to live that moment in their mind. So when I read a sentence that makes little sense, contains contradictions, tautologies or is clumsy in its execution, I'm forced to pause and reconsider that scene. If it's because I don't understand a word, then at least I've gained something for the inconvenience. If it's because the writer doesn't understand a word, I feel cheated.

The same goes for cliches. Let nobody tell you that writers should avoid cliches like the plague - they are useful. Dwarves work in mines, the hero gets the girl and the bad guy is your father. Yet they are useful for good reasons. They are templates the reader brings with them, giving the writer lapels to grab and pull the reader around by. So when a story is cliche in such a way that it presumes to be novel and clever, I again know the writer is without much skill.

Dan Brown is such a writer. The fact readers are not only capable, but willing to ignore poor writing for a cliched story depresses me, to be blunt. I can understand getting a hamburger as opposed to a perfectly cooked fillet mignon because it is cheaper, or more convenient. Dan Brown is not a hamburger to a fillet mignon - his books are not cheaper, nor more convenient. Admittedly, you can ignore his clumsy sentences and still move quickly through the story, however it's like picking the maggots from your steak and saying it gave you less to eat, making it a faster meal.

I'll never begrudge anybody from reading Dan Brown, Matthew Riley or Stephanie Meyer. It's a free world. But knowing that most people read such authors purely on the hype surrounding them, I can't help but feel such phenomena reflect an unfortunate state of literacy in the world.

Athon