The small man looked at the big book
You can read my big piece on Dan Brown and the build-up to the publication of The Lost Symbol in today's Times, or read it online. They have used a funny photo from the session I did with photographer Richard Cannon on Wednesday at Waterstone's in Piccadilly, which involves a giant Dan Brown book. The thing is, it looks like they have cleverly superimposed a regular-sized book onto a picture of me pretending I am holding it up - but I really was holding it up! Not sure the shirt looks that good, but hey, you live and learn.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 9:48 AM
31 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
31 Comments:
Good article!
However, something within this paragraph just doesn't compute:
"I promise you I am not an idiot, but I was so taken with it that I bought the special illustrated edition and the Rough Guide."
Interesting article. I've read the Langdon two but not Brown's other stuff as yet (too many other books waiting for me!) and did enjoy them but recognise them for what they are - stories. It seems to me that too many people tried to take them as truth (or a distorted version of it) and thus got upset for all the wrong reasons.
By which, Paul, are you saying I am an idiot?
That picture does look horribly fake - which is why I was inclined to believe that it's "real" given how good the Photoshoppers are these days.
And it's a nicely balanced piece. Even though (to my horror!) I find myself siding with Anne Widdecombe rather than Stewart Lee: reading anything is good. And Dan Brown is better than an awful lot of those knock-offs that you list in the article (I've read far too many of them, to my shame.)
-- David
p.s. I'm dying to read The Dawkins Huff though. When's it coming out?
I really disagree with the idea that 'at least it's getting people reading'. So what if they're reading rubbish? You never hear anyone say 'oh well he's watching Big Brother, I know it's not The Wire but at least he's watching something'. Especially when something is as time consuming and involving as reading, it seems even more of a waste of time to use that energy on something so pointless and intellectually void.
Interesting article I might add. I notice the massive influx of 'Brown-a-likes' with similar titles, or even names. I can't help but feel that many of these were novels that had already been written, where the publisher convinced the author to change the titles (or, again, even their pen-names) to sound similar.
Crikey Andrew - not a review for the idle browser eh? Well written, but for this idle browser a bit on the long side.
I wonder what "slacker reader" Richard will make of it :-)
Very good article, but will you now get into trouble with Murdoch for all the £1.50's he's after losing?! (more in Ireland!)
A good review there Andrew if a touch long as others have said.
Oh and to liquidcow - Personally the "at least they're reading something" is as valid an argument as any. I would rather my daughters read trashy novels than say watched endless repeats of Spongebob Squarepants. Reading is a cerebral activity that will develop their attention spans and imaginations in a way the TV or film never will.
Don't moderate too harshly Andrew ;-P
Just for the record, I don't think I claimed the Times piece was a "review" for idle browsing. This may not be apparent online, but it's the cover story of the paper's Review supplement that takes up all of one page and part of another. It's 2,400 words long. I really appreciate it if anybody reads it right through, but I really don't expect it, I promise.
I love the comment by "stephen williamson" on the Times website. What a beautiful parody of a Dan Brown reader.
I've just graduated after studying a degree in English Literature, and I have to say that whilst I loved it I did find the attitude of some of the lecturers rather difficult to understand when it came to Dan Brown.
He was seen by them as the antichrist. The man who is single-handedly tearing down anything that 'good literature' stood for. Whenever his name was mentioned they would roll their eyes and look at us as if to say 'well of course we know better'. I find such attitudes incredibly annoying - they had forgotten that literature was, essentially, a form of entertainment.
Whilst it's clear that Dan Brown isn't the best author in the world, he does (in my opinion) spin a good story. My friend (who is aiming to write for a living) says that he hates Dan Brown and his books. However, he freely admits that this is because he is jealous of the success. I wonder how much other criticism is the same.
I know nothing about cars. One day I told my car-loving friends how much I'd enjoyed a ride in a certain make of sports car one day. They told me that it was a rubbish car, lacked power and wasn't very well made. But did I care? Not one bit. I enjoyed the rush.
I think the same applies to Dan Brown books.
Actually Liquidcow you cannot compare reading Dan Brown to watching TV (Big Brother or otherwise), reading is not a passive activity like watching TV is, regardless if the writing is pap or not, to read you have to engage - you could say just looking at pictures in a coffee table book is the same as 'hey at least he's watching TV', but not a novel.
Having watched my own relatively illiterate sister (in literary terms) start with 'Jilly cooper' type books and then progress over the years to things relatively more 'intellectually stimulating' (her completing Irvine Welsh's Trainspotting for instance was a surprise for me considering her lack of reading a year before).
Don't knock it. If anything it gets people to concentrate on something for more than 15 minutes.
Many people think that reading is 'hard' so when a Dan Brown comes along and they get caught up in all the hype and suddenly think 'hey! I can read something for more than a few minutes and isn't it great?' then that can only be a good thing.
Your starting to really look like Mark Thomas!
Richard is gonna be jealous that the giant book got to bum you before he did :-P
Two and a half thousand words is "too long"?
I can remember when an NME article on the most flimsy of pop bands would run to at least that length.
Maybe the perceived need for snappiness demanded by Twitter, Facebook etc. is to blame, maybe people are reading more but understanding less.
If a subject is worth discussing surely it's worth discussing at a reasonable length? The global publishing phenomenon that is Dan Brown can't be analyised in 160 characters or less.
Obviously 2,400 words is too much for some people and they be forced to pay attention. Perhaps they'd prefer it were written in 140-character chunks.
looking forwards to the pythagorus stepladder, which vestibule will be on the cover?
I think I made a comment with a spurious unfounded allegation, thanks for not publishing it if i did press send. I don't know why I ranted with such vitriol about stewart Lee as I do actually like him. Hope I'm not barred for life. :S
p.s. why is a literary guilty pleasure an odious concept to you?
I'm glad you feel that way about your previous post, Karl. The concept of a "guilty pleasure" is odious to me. Why would you read a book, or listen to a record, and feel guilty about it, unless you live you life for the benefit of what others may think of you, rather than what you think of yourself. Why did the people polled by YouGov mentioned in my piece feel "guilty" for reading Stephen King or JK Rowling?
I think most people will have at some time set out to be on a healthy diet and then eaten a chocolate muffin we knew we should consume something more nutritional but we did enjoy it. Afterwards we do not feel proud to speak of this event hence the reticence in Dan Brown fans revealing themselves on twitter. An internal guilty conscience is what one thinks of oneself. If they were really guilty and ashamed of what others would think they may not have admitted the truth to YouGov in which case the true poll could be even more disturbing they were actually reading talking cock!
Although I'm a huge Stewart Lee fan, I find his remarks a little disappointing.
He is well known for being a big fan of superhero comicbooks (as am I!), so you'd think he'd realise what it's like to have things you're interested in dismissed as worthless or childish.
I've never read any Dan Brown, but it seems unfair to totally write something off (especially without reading it).
It reminds me of the pointless rivalry between various geek factions (Harry Potter fans scorning Twilight etc). You'd think victimisation would breed a little mutual humility!
If the article is too long for some, maybe you should have used short paragraphs, and finished each one with a cliffhanger.
I read The Da Vinci Code in record time (for me, a fairly slow reader) thanks to Brown's shameless structure.
I finished the book feeling like I'd had a rather empty experience, but enjoyed it at the time, so can't criticise it too much.
I totally agree with Adam Smith's point of view. Most of us who relish a good bit of literature as adults probably started off reading childrens books that, with the exception of genius like Roald Dahl, were utter rubbish. Nevertheless, we enjoyed them and as we got older our tastes matured and our reading material probably followed suit.
But what about someone who has never read much more than a tabloid or glossy mag, but has decided to stimulate themselves properly and wants to appreciate what the rest of us are raving about when we talk about Wilde or Dostoyevsky etc. I don't think they'd have the attention span. You can't expect someone to just jump in at the deep end and pick up "Crime and Punishment". I myself read a lot as a child but neglected it in my teenage years. Easy page-turners like Da Vinci Code provided me with a way back in when I was around 21.
I do think Dan Brown's stuff is awful writing, but we can certainly view it as a "gateway book". Like a kids' book for adults.
Thank god you've been going down the gym a lot recently Andrew, or you could have given yourself a hernia. How much more training before you try to lift War and Peace;]
Claire
So when is the next C&H podcast MrC?
Sorry, I thought I'd specified elsewhere: five podcasts, recorded live in Edinburgh and available each afternoon, Weds-Sun Aug 19-23. Should be interesting.
I thought I felt the same way about 'guilty' pleasures, but I flip flop on it. I agree that what other people think is irrelevant, but there are some things we admire that we know are beneath us. There are elements to them that we despise, but they're compulsive.
I don't hide the fact that I used to buy the NotW alongside my broadsheet of a Sunday. I find it quite funny I was addicted to the tittle tattle. But I was always a bit ashamed, inwardly. Thus, it was a guilty pleasure on a personal level.
Darren, I'd contend this: "Most of us who relish a good bit of literature as adults probably started off reading childrens books that, with the exception of genius like Roald Dahl, were utter rubbish."
Pitching a children's book with just the right tone is incredibly difficult! I'd say that there's probably more creativity and craft in children's writing than in much of the pulp work produced for airport novels. Philip Pullman's work aimed at younger children is disarmingly written but my kids are completely drawn in by it...and once you get to the meat of the story there's far more there than appears from the simplistic writing style.
Dan Brown on the other hand...there's far less there than first appears. I've read TDVC and enjoyed it, but I tried reading Angels and Demons and it's one of the few books I've given up on! The writing 'style' kept breaking the fourth wall and dropping me out of the story.
Apologies, Woz! I see how that statement came across like that and it doesn't really reflect how I feel. Plenty of childrens books are extremely well written with the kids in mind. I simply meant that to a mature reader with more mature demands they're usually (though not always) inadequate. Which they have in common with Dan Brown.
There's nothing worse than literary critics pushing a book they're not going to like just so that they can say they don't like it. There was this literary panel show on R4 recently wherein a bunch of authors etc including Sebastian Faulks took turns to pile on to John Grisham. And I don't even listen to Saturday Review any more because they always review big popcorn films and they just don't like them or don't admit to liking them.
I thought The DaVinci Code was a great read. Digital Fortress was dire.
It's not literary fiction but then I'm finding 'The Kindly Ones' hard going at the moment... It's really OK to read a page-turner, and people who pretend not to for the sake of their media career (and I do not mean Andrew Collins!) need to ask themselves whether they're wasting their time reading stuff that's so contemptuous, or whether they're just a tiny bit jealous...
Minor point, but Solomon's alleged architect beloved of Freemasons is Hiram Abiff, not just Hiram.
Hope Brown is doing something more interesting than masonic exposes in the new book - he'll be hard pressed to top Stephen Knight's 20 year old alleged revelations (Jah-Bul-On etc), and I think most people know about the masonic element to Washington architecture, dollar bills and the like.
Hmm, is there a symbol for "please don't read this load of old cock because it'll probably be as bad as the last two?" It'd be nice to un-lose that so we could use it here.
I'll read trashy stuff with the best of the but Dan Brown's so depressingly bad. The most usual defence of Brown I hear is, "well he's not the best write but he CAN tell a story". Well, you know what? they also said that about Jeffrey Archer. I once forced myself to read Archer's Shall We Tell The President. It was beyoind awful.
But anyway, back to Brown. The latest book will run something like this:
Following the initial setup chapter where someone gets killed, we meet a nasty man, about whom we are expected to develop a deep dislike and boo whenever he appears (and it WILL be a he).
We then meet the hero, who is contacted by a mysterious woman, asking hoim for help. One of the first places they go is to meet a very nice man who promises to help them. He, in fact, turns out to tbe the bad guy (yes, he too WILL be a man).
After some tedious chases and arbitrary puzzle solving in a variety of locations that Brown has visited himself in the last couple of years and though it would be nice to write about, the hero and the now-slightly-less mysterious woman end up encountering the nasty man from the start of the book. He is NOT the bad guy and helps them, before dying.
The bad guy is soundly dispatched and the now not-at-all mysterious woman thanks our hero and leaves, not offering him any sexual favours at all. It wouldn't matter if she did becasue he wouldn't accept; he is blandly asexual as written and Brown clearly doesn't want to (or knows he can't) write sex scenes.
THE. END.
Can I have my advance now please?
Post a Comment
<< Home