Why do people insist that Dan Brown is a good writer?

Question

He is not. A good story in itself does not a good novel make. 'The Da Vinci Code' is a good yarn with lots of good ideas in it, but it is very badly written. It's reads as if it were a first draught with very few corrections; as if the publishers were in a hurry to get it out. Another couple of weeks of editing and it could have been a great book. Does anyone agree?

Answer 1

I'm glad you wrote this question as it makes you realise what people are looking for in a book - not always *sometimes never* a good literary text.

But I must admit I enjoyed The Da Vinci Code - but definitely not to call it a literary masterpiece. It was this side of the 'review' that he would fail miserbaly - which is where I completely agree with you.

I think most of all he is lazy with descriptive elements where another author would probably use it as a chance to show his literary and creative skills.

I noticed it straight away in the book - I think one of the worst lines I read was something like this:-
"...She then realised (sophie neveu) that he looked alittle like Harrison Ford..."
It made me sick!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then the reason I liked it was because there are some elements of trurth for example the Priory of Sion does exist so does Opus Dei whether what DB says about them is true is another matter. I lived in Paris for a few years as part of my Uni degree so I enjoyed the constant reference to France.

As for the plagiarism cased based on the book Holy Blood Holy Grail - I don't know if anyone has read it but DB has certainly not plagarised i.e. copying ad verbatim from them. He has actually referenced them - and theirs is a factual book while DB's is a novel. I noticed since the lawsuit - Baignet & co(onauthors of Holy Blood and Holy Grail) have re-released their new book in hard back with pictures just like DB did. I think they are just slightly upset lol that they didn't make as much money as DB did.

Anyway on another note - maybe it's a good thing DB didn't get someone one to gloss his work for him like many authors do. Then it's NOT a true reflection of the work they do which is more plagiarism on their part.

He made a buck so good on him.

Answer 2

I completely agree with you - its been driving me up the wall how everybody thinks he is the new god in the literary world.

I think the idea for the Da Vinci code was good - so much could have been done with it. But when it came down to it, it was badly written, and I felt he tried to have a cliffhanger at the end of every single chapter. Getting annoyed with it is putting it lightly.

I've not bothered reading the other Dan Brown books - don't think I will.

But I've heard Dan Brown basically nicked the idea off another book, which I cannot for the life of me remember the name of. Isn't he getting sued?? So as well as being an appalling writer, he doesn't have an original idea in his head either.

One more thing - I didn't see this, but apparently he was a complete to$$er on an interview once, believed all his own hype a little bit too much I was told.

Answer 3

"The Da Vinci Code" is a book which was published after great advertising. It was everywhere. And lots of people read it. The thing is, not many people can tell an interesting story from a well written novel. The book is of poor artistic and literary quality. It make you read it all the way through, just because of its "soap opera structure". The culmination of each chapter is in the very last sentence of the chapter. This makes you keep reading it. I agree with you totally, it's an interesting story, but a lousy novel. I wouldn't call him a writer.

Answer 4

I think you are right, Dan Brown has a good story to tell but he is not a great writer. I think that the average American (who buys maybe 3 books a year,) would not know a great writer if the book was fed to him piece by piece with a spoon. AA (average American) believes reading a book is a painful and ugly process, like it was in school for him (her) when s/he was dragged by the hair thru Silas Marner. When they find a book as painless to read as Brown's, it's perceived as a masterpiece.
I don't know . I guess I'm happy AA is reading something even if it is a pile of nonsense. Perhaps a couple of AA's will catch the reading habit and graduate to something better.
In books as in liquor- 80% of the product is bought by 20% of the customers. The profits from blockbusters like these keep the publishing houses afloat so they can publish better stuff.

Answer 5

I totally agree, the story in itself is good but the writing style is certainly not the books strong point, If Dan Brown maybe changed his style into something a bit more profound and for want of a better word less simplistic he could be very good. I doubt he would sell as many books to the masses though.

Answer 6

I really enjoyed The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons - I've just ordered another. I studied English Literature at uni and believe me there many incredibly poor authors out there who bored me to tears throughout my degree heralded as "greats" - I think anyone who grips readers and writes a best seller must be a good writer!

Answer 7

It's not "how" the literary masterpiece is written which makes an artist good at something, but it's his confidence of bringing up with his idea especially to the public, the readers. In literature, Dan Brown becomes truly a good writer because he has the GUTS to expose those possibilites which discusses mainly about Christ. If you were a writer who'd want to be careful about your writings so as to protect your credibility and reputations, would you like to write such literary masterpiece? You could either end up HATED or PRAISED by the people. But look at Mr. Brown, he ended up contraversial which led him to popularity and we can say, his idea was generally accepted but still we cannot deny the fact that there are still many who'd like to oppose. We can say, Mr. Brown, rather than ended HATED, he was PRAISED, and that is the reason why he is good.

Answer 8

He is an appalling writer -- but he has managed to capture the imagination of people that are spiritually curious/hungry/empty -- or go along with the herd. I gave up on the Code after ten pages. NB It is people who do not habitually read books that take to Dan Brown's fiction. Same, to a degree, with Rowling...

Answer 9

Thank you! He's terrible! As someone with a degree in linguistics, the entire book made me cringe and groan. The only thing that kept me through until the end was that it was set in Paris (the love of my life).

I'm only sympathetic to the cause because at least he's getting people to read something. People these days read so infrequently, I hazard to say that it's commendable that he could at the very least get them to read anything. Then again, with that kind of power, one would think that he'd use the position to foster good reading skills. I don't know how fair people can get if they read crap all the time.

What I don't understand is the insane popularity of the thing. I mean, granted, it's controversial, but it's fiction!

Answer 10

Another century of editing would have made no difference-it is and always will be a badly written book. I think maybe he wrote it in one of those codes he was on about in it. Truly, I had to labour over every sentence to make it 'go in'. If it hadn't been about a controversial issue, the book would not have seen the light of day.