What makes Dan Brown a terrible writer?

Question

Where does Dan Brown fail us, aside from disagreeing with his ideals?

If you think he is the cat's meow, then what makes that so, specifically?

You've missed the point entirely Ding-Ding. This is why I stated, "aside from disagreeing with his ideals", because what a writer purports to tell you, does not make him a good or bad writer. Not to mention, I did not ask why The Da Vinci Code, or Angels and Demons is bad. I could care less about the content of his story, but rather, how do you feel about his ability to write, and what that writing does for you artistically. What it means to be a writer. How does Dan Brown fail us in his ability to write, and if you disagree, then what do you like about his prose?

Answer 1

I guess that depends on what you consider the purpose of his writing is. I don't think he was trying to write something deep and insightful but rather a popular fiction. That's a valid genre and I think he accomplished it rather well, based on his book sales.

His actual writing is okay. I don't think it's that great or that bad. I wasn't exactly paying attention to sentence structure, mechanics, and such, but I didn't notice any glaring errors. The whole leaving the reader at a cliffhanger at the end of just about every chapter got kind of old, but he did a decent job at taking various things and putting them together as a piece of historical fiction.

The character development was okay. I didn't really identify with the characters that much, but I don't think that was one of his major goals, making Langdon into a deep and insightful character.

Answer 2

Half Truths
Faulty Facts
Massive Plagarism
Intention Fails Result
Inadequate Research

Answer 3

I really don't understand this. It is a book of fiction. Dan Brown did not set out to "save" or "fail" anyone. Be specific in your term "terrible". What are your criteria for terrible? Then apply those same critiria to the Bible, the Qu'ran, Shakspears Sonnets, to Clear and Present Danger, to Catcher in the Rye, Greys Anatomy.

He is an author who apparently hit a very sensitive nerve somewhere.

People need to stop and think. This is a book of fiction. It has been catagorized by his publisher as fiction. The disclaimer on the backside of the copyright flyleaf classifies it as fiction. The Library of Congress classifies it as fiction.

This reminds me of Orson Wells' radio production of H.G. Wells novel, "War of the Worlds" in the late 1930's. It was repeated constantly during station breaks that this was just a science fiction radio broadcast but the public just went crazy anyway.

Orson Wells radio show touched the fear in peoples' hearts. A fear they were not safe. Is this what has happened in the Christian community? Is this a fear that maybe the foundations of their faith are on sandy soil? If a book of fiction can shake their faith, what does that say about their faith?

My take on this is get real, get a grip, just deal.

Thank-you for the feed-back.

I did not say I disagreed with the theory put forth in his novel. I was basically commenting on the conflariagation over this book. As an author, I commend him on his ability to get people thinking about what we believe, what we have been led like sheep to believe and what is "real". This goes for our governments, polititians, ecomomists, etc, etc.
I cannot see where he has failed us. He has written a rousing good tale of the mists of time, deceit and subterfuge and tied them neatly together in this novel. The only complaint I would have would be he has written in the common style of the times. He used the same references as writers of the book "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" Because he used the same references as THBATHG authors, he could not be accused of plagerism. In fact he gives a cursory nod of approval to the authors of this book by having a character with a thinly veiled similar name in his book. Many people are treating the book as if it were actual reasearch or a documentary, which it is not. That too may be blamed on the author as that is the style in which he chose to write. I do not feel he has failed us as a writer. We all sat up and took notice. He got a reaction from his reader. We all started thinking (logically or not, we are thinking) I feel this is the goal of all writers, to make the reader think. He did not fail us in this.

Answer 4

I think Dan Brown is a brilliant writer, The Da Vinci Code was a great read...makes me wonder though how many lies have been told to cover up christianity....

Answer 5

Dan Brown is a brilliant writer because he mixes controversy with fiction, knowing that controversy sells. Whether or not the reader agrees, people will still read the Davinci Code just to see what everyone is talking about. It is always interesting to hear why people believe or don't believe.

P.S. people should have their own mind and should not believe everything they read always.

Answer 6

I think the fact that he tried to cram as much factual information into every little paragraph as possible. And I'm not talking about the religious factor here at all, I'm talking about geographical, architectural, historical facts.

Sure, we all know the guy did a lot of research, but do we have to have every living detail about The Louvre jammed into a couple of pages........

also - too many adverbs are somewhat offensive to the reader

Answer 7

The answer is simple. Fame. Once you become famous at least 1/3 of your readership will ahte your work. As long aws you are reasonably unkown most people who read what you write will like it. So the obvious conclusion is that fame makes writting worse.

Answer 8

He steals material from other writers and authors. A great writer is original, not just someone who reprocesses work form other authors.~smiles

Answer 9

disagreeing with own ideas;
are you mad because that should be reserved for the bible?

I enjoy Dan Brown's books but because I am sane I don't let a book rule my life.

Answer 10

He's alright. his novel is just something to get you thinking that's all. even he wrote that it's fictional so why bother? Other then his conspirical storyline, I'd say he's a good writer.