Dan Brown can't get no respect
Is Dan Brown the Rodney Dangerfield of authors? The guy's book sales are recorded in the zillions (The Lost Symbol, is headed there too), and his movies are instant blockbusters. Yet he gets no respect. Author Jodi Picoult and others call his writing simplistic, and movie critics shred Angels & Demons.
The latest swipe comes from Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgard, who plays the head of the Pope's Swiss guard in A&D. You might remember him from last year's Arn - Riket vid vägens slut. No? Well he also played the M.I.T. prof in Good Will Hunting.
He says he took a role only after reading the script based on the book. "I think Dan Brown is a terribly bad writer, but he has cliffhangers after every chapter which makes you continue reading," Skarsgard told Swedish broadcaster SVT. "It's like eating peanuts at a bar. You don't like them, but you keep on eating them anyway."
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I'm sure Brown, like Dangerfield, will accept the criticism graciously. As long as the royalty checks keep rolling in.
Comments
I have to agree with Skarsgaard. Dan Brown's writing is like bar peanuts. His research is sloppy, his writing is lacking in style, and his plots are implausible in the extreme, but you do want to find out what happens, and that is a skill in itself, so credit to him for that.
I also happen to think that Diana Wynne-Jones was a far better children's writer than J.K. Rowling could ever hope to be.
Doesn't mean I didn't read the Harry Potter or Dan Brown books. It's just that I wish other authors enjoyed the success they deserved.
Posted by: Fleisch | May 16, 2009 1:25 AM
Well he does follow the same formula for each of his 4 novels so far. Chapter one involves the murder of an innocent person, who will later be revealed to be a key plot point, by the novel's assassin du-jour. Every chapter will end in a cliffhanger. There will be a major character that you will be led to believe is good/bad but their true side will be revealed about 75% through the book. This is not to say he is not takented. He does great research and can craft a dense but enthralling plot. And as a freemason, I look forward to seeing how he treats the craft in his new book. (Its allegedly about freemasonry in DC)
Posted by: Paul in Allentown | May 16, 2009 5:41 AM
He writes garbage. Fleisch, don't read Harry Potter or Dan Brown, or any such junk force fed to you. There are better books, just take a minute to find some. Thanks for your attention.
Posted by: litsnob | May 16, 2009 11:51 AM
Paul said it right. I don't know why nobody else sems to realize that his books are all the same. Buy one book and you've bought all.
Posted by: Rikki | May 16, 2009 12:15 PM
I agree with Skarsgard's point, but that doesn't necessarily translate into disrespecting Dan Brown. After all, Dan Brown's books (or the single one I've read) are enjoyable precisely because of their simplicity and constant cliffhangers. Slow readers are instantly sucked into the story and the fact is that reading a book like that is occasionally fun, if unrewarding in the literary sense.
Posted by: Biblibio | May 16, 2009 1:37 PM
I can't wait to see this movie! In general, it got bad reviews, but Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars and Jeffrey Lyons (NBC News) raved about it. I have great respect for these two reviewers. Most of the time, I agree with them. We'll see if I agree on this one.
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | May 16, 2009 4:22 PM
It is sad that econd-rate Dan Brown has gotten away with ripping off all of the ideas in Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's "Illuminatus!" (1975), the ultimate conspiracy book, and a lot of Robert Anton Wilson's other works as well. Just like the movie "23" did, before this. Can't get over how all of the hundreds of shallow media reviewers and even shallower book readers who only read what is on the 'best seller' list, have no idea that Brown just stole other people's works.
Posted by: Tom The Patriot | May 16, 2009 5:33 PM
I thought "Angels & Demons" was a much better book than "The DaVinci Code," which is why I said on Saturday that I couldn't wait to see the movie. I didn't wait. I saw it yesterday and liked it a lot. I have to admit it was unbelievable how Tom Hanks was able to correctly decipher all the clues leading him in his chase around Rome, but his quest provides a great story and non-stop action. As Roger Ebert writes in his review (http://tiny.cc/kIPNs): "This kind of film requires us to be very forgiving, and if we are, it promises to entertain. 'Angels & Demons' succeeds."
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | May 18, 2009 11:23 AM
It's apparent that you are a severely jealous person.
Posted by: Mark | May 18, 2009 3:47 PM
I see no reason to read the new book, having read the first four. He's writing the same book each time. Fortunately, I read from my local library so all I did was waste my time.,
Posted by: Randy Johnson | May 19, 2009 10:37 PM