Adagio, thanks for this tidbit. I always think that the best writers are not writers: they are artists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adagio
Printable View
Adagio, thanks for this tidbit. I always think that the best writers are not writers: they are artists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adagio
How Dan Brown feeds the Brain:
http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/58851/
Is it "priory of scion" or "Priory of Zion"?
While I don't think we should automatically reject an author because he or she is unapologetically "commercial."
I also don't believe we should use the term "literary stylist" lightly. I must confess I haven't taken the time to read Dan Brown's prose, but a family member whom I respect has read The DaVinci Code and informs me that his writing is unreadable -- not only is the narrator condescending, the descriptions are crammed with clichés. I have, however, seen Ron "Opie" Howard's movie version on television and found it mildly entertaining.
Among critics the rap against Dan Brown is that not only for his mediocre prose style but for his free-wheeling attitude toward theological history. Brown has been taken to task for his alleged "Catholic-bashing," although that alone isn't enough to devalue his work. The trouble is
his attitude toward religion in general. A New York Times columnist addresses this very issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/op...that.html?_r=1
Americans used to be taken to task for their tendency to be "cafeteria Catholics" --picking and choosing among the obligations to see which ones match their life style. Evidently Brown has this attitude toward all religions. If a person adopts such a wishy-washy attitude toward his or her core beliefs, how committed a Jew/Christian/Moslem/Buddhist et. al would he or she be?
Having read the "How Dan Brown Feeds the Brain" link above, I think that not only does Brown want to flatter his readers, he also is a child of the Feel-Good-About-Yourself generation, in which self-esteem is valued as the ultimate good. By contrast, the religion in which I was brought up
emphasized avoiding the "Sin of Pride," and that every soul starts out in a state of original sin. Otherwise, why would we need redemption?
I'm not an expert or a devotee in any way, but I remember of a few lines in the New Testament about "lukewarm" Christians -- God will "spit them out of His mouth."
You're right. It would be irrelevant to criticize an author's prose style who has no interest in words beyond trivial or sensational implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I can confirm this. Most of the fun facts are given through narration and it was one of the popular things in the book, so they had to transfer it to the script somehow and the did so through dialogue *cringe*.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I agree to an extent. It is true that an author, or whatever, could work through metaphor or synecdoche, but readers can also exploit what doesn't exist. I looked at the members of the conspiracy as individuals and not as if it was conspiracy that involved every Christian, or Catholic. It's like when a citizen (John Smith) is beaten by a police officer (John Doe) and Sharpton humanizes the victim, but exploits the situation by having the aggressor stand for an organization: "John Smith was brutally beaten by the (definite article) police."Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
Of course the Opus Dei is was made the conspiracy interesting, because anybody could have left Brown on the shelf and picked up Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
I've never heard the term "cafeteria Catholics"; is that your creation. It does extend past America, not to be defensive. There are numerous cases in South America of women, or young women, who would become Hester Prynne if they aborted a fetus that was conceived through rape and yet, two thieves are caught by villagers and forced to fight to the death. I don't know if that accurately illustrates my point, the fact that I'm writing this implies that I know it doesn't. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
everybody kept telling me to read the Da vinci code but I just have no longing to read it, read a few pages visiting my mom who loved it but didn't like what I read. then I saw the movie and liked it, saw angels and demons the other day and fell asleep, did not like it. very obvious who the bad guy was and no fun revelations or even interesting characters, the book may be better but I don't think I'll read it anytime soon...
Priory of SionQuote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
Ah, Dan Brown, the lovers and haters. I could easily stand bad prose if it had only an unpredictable plot. I wonder if there are any original popular artists out there; it seems people just go for the common and comfortable, and are frightened away from the original. I can understand liking a popular book, it's just the people that read only that and call it excellence that I fear for.
Variety is the spice of life...
We had to set up the stores at 5am this morning for the launch of the book. I tried to read Angels and Demons. Possible the worst written book i've ever tried to read.
But! I really enjoyed both movies.
I haven't read The DaVinci Code and I've seen the movie of Angels & Demons. So far after hearing about The Lost Symbol, it sound very interesting to read. I think it's because it's has themes about Washington and the Freemasons. I may read it then again I may not.
Well, he started his DaVinci Code with a lie, because the Priory of Zion was the biggest hoax and practical joke in history. It did not exist, it has never existed and it does not exist, only in the mind of a few history-mad people in France who dropped some documents with names on it in the national archives of France.
A BBC journalist traced the whole thing and came to a trio of totally unknown French men: one who had died (if I am right), one strange man living for history who was the 'spokesman' (even once gave an interview and all in the 80s. It looked very real!) and one man with a lot of money who liked to play practical jokes that cost a lot of money (he once claimed to have the Holy Grail in his garden in a cave and had loads of pilgrims before he actually told them it was all a laugh).
The secret organisations real...
What he/she said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Sparrows
Also after reading the da vinci code and angels and demons i had the strong feeling that i've been reading the same book twice :rolleyes:
Lighten up. The DaVinci Code is a book of fiction and a thriller, no one ever said it's a true story.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
To be fair, I don't think people criticise Brown's books for being thrillers or lightweight but for his wretched prose. P G Wodehouse is not a serious writer: his novels are lightweight, comic stories about the English upper classes but his prose is superb. In fact he was one of the greatest writers of English prose in the 20th century. The English-British stand up comic (and Oxford graduate) Stewart Lee said that reading Dan Brown was like a wine taster destroying his taste buds with bleach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
I was responding to someone who said the story was a lie, but that's why it's called fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
DVC was never written to be a literary work, I don't think. It's a thriller with high entertainment value. While anyone can appreciate beautifully and meticuloulsy crafted sentences, to read a thriller for fine prose is comparing apples and oranges.
It is not that I do not seeits value as a good thriller, although it is badly written as many others say too, but stting in the beginning that your story has a true backgound and listing that Priory is not really well-researched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
Dumas did his research much better in that sense.
But, may I ask, if it is clear that it is a thriller (i.e. faction) why is it that it was so controlversial? Clearly not everyone knew that it was fiction totally...