Comments on: The Telegraph’s 20 worst Dan Brown sentences

By: alan

alan — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:56:58 +0000

You must have been tired or something. And it’s not that it’s not true that I have an issue with – after all, I’m a dark fantasy writer so I have no case against writing things that are true! But writing them well is another matter entirely.

By: ganymeder

ganymeder — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:14:44 +0000

Well, I did enjoy TDVC, but I basically read it to find out what the big deal was. I really enjoyed it, but I thought everyone taking it literally was just stupid because it’s OBVIOUSLY not true. I mean, really people.

But, I did really like the book. So much so that I bought a copy of Angels and Demons and realized that it was the EXACT same book with different names and places. After reading for a little bit, I could predict…okay right HERE is where to twist is…and this guy seems good so he must be the bad guy, yada yada yada. So, yeah, learned my lesson.

I hate to admit it, but I didn’t really notice the bad sentences and mixed metaphors that much. I would probably rate the books about the same level as any fluffy pulp fiction novel…entertaining but without much substance.

By: Chris Maric

Chris Maric — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:59:12 +0000

hahaha – ive always been into the Masonic, meanings within meanings, secret society type stuff and have done years before he came along. So while Dan appeals to the lowest common denominator, like Marcinko’s, Rambo on Roids capers, I read thru the crapola and take what I want from it – Given both authors books read like screenplays you can knock them off in 2 or 3 decent sittings so its an escape, pure and simple – after reading a million words a day on email, I often am not up to taking on anything deeper than that – its like watching CSI, just turn your brain off and enjoy it.

And yes, personal experience on working 2 Oasis albums in my Sony days, I can only agree with you on a general hatred of Oasis 9and Nickleback!)

By: alan

alan — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:52:47 +0000

James – indeed, Chris is right. As a reader also, I’m right too. I’m just a reader with a more discerning palate than Chris.

I also hate Oasis. With a fucking passion!

But you’re right, it’s all subjective and different people like different things. Sadly, people seem to like Dan Brown type books and Hollywood blockbuster type movies, so the publishers and production houses continue to churn out the same old homogenous shit that they know people will buy, constantly pandering to the lowest common denominator in a marketplace full of brainless sheep consumers.

But I’m not bitter or anything.

By: James Frost

James Frost — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:38:05 +0000

Chris – as Alan has said recently – ‘the reader is always right.’ So you must be right in this instance – it’s the writers who are wrong!

Does that also mean that if Dan Brown and JK Rowling sell more books than Alan Baxter, that makes them ‘more right’ as well? Maybe technical quality of writing (and quality of Daniel Adair’s drumming) is not really that important.

Take Oasis for example – Is Liam Gallagher a great singer? No. Do they write good lyrics? No. Is the music technically brilliant? No. However, put it all together and they are one of the most popular bands in the last decade or so.

It’s the subjective quality of the overall package as experienced by the reader or listener that matters.

By: Chris Maric

Chris Maric — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:52:59 +0000

you guys are writers, im a reader – havent written anything seriously since uni. i guess this is the same as me complaining about the drum tracks on a nickleback song – there is really no need to, you know they are average.. hehe

By: Leticia

Leticia — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:48:06 +0000

Yeah, look, I love a trashy read. You couldn’t by any stretch call Robert G. Barrett’s work anything like literature, or even books that are anywhere near higher off the ground than Brown’s works. BUT they *are* properly written, and well edited. Therein lies the difference.

By: Chris Maric

Chris Maric — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:44:07 +0000

haha – the old Rogue has dropped the ball on the last few and it certainly shows – Ive read far far worse shit than Dan too – I think Matthew Reilly is a better writer than him but good luck getting an Aussie to that level eh!

By: alan

alan — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:27:08 +0000

And that’s where you and I differ! I can grasp the concept of the Rogue series of books. I understand why you like them. But they’re crap and I can’t bring myself to waste time reading them.

To use your example, Terminator is a great action movie with very few flaws. The latest Wolverine film, on the other hand, was woeful with really stupid errors in the writing, therefore I hated it. I can enjoy action flicks (or books) with no substance, but not when they’re poorly written and full of holes.

By: Chris Maric

Chris Maric — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:19:34 +0000

See Im often across things alot earlier than the genereal public is esp with the job I have – I read TDVC and the 3 others before that about 12 months prior to the media frenzy that turned them in to a brand and just enjoyed the stories. Like the Rogue Warrior who I love by Al just cant grasp, the overall concept, screenplay like narrative and general ‘good trashy book for a plane/train’ sits fine with me – I never expect to open a Dan Brown novel and be blown away with its literary skill contained within and with every box ticked in the ‘ten things you must adhere to so Leticia will accept you as a writer’ list

Its like analysing the Terminator and picking at all its faults rather than just watching it for the action and explosions. Having read all those lame ass sentences listed above points out that he is a very average writer, but with the stories themselves being quite engaging and a good escape from the heavy stuff we normally read, i can ignore them and just enjoy it.