|The Declarer (Floyd McWilliams' Blog)|
Sunday, January 24, 2010
wonderful Language Log post on the awful writing in The DaVinci Code:
I remain mystified by the popularity of Brown's work. Da Vinci Code wasn't just badly written; it was unrealistic, contained absurd errors, and was fundamentally unsatisfying. The book promised an amazing revelation, but at the end it sort of petered out.
(And lest you get the wrong impression -- I love thrillers and mysteries. When I say "unrealistic" I am accounting for the suspension of disbelief that all such works necessitate. To some extent all mystery/thriller fiction is schlock, but the better purveyors -- Martin Cruz Smith, Ken Follett -- at least will teach you something, and believe in their characters.
Brown is somewhat reminiscent of Robert Ludlum. My not-very-informed impression of Ludlum is that he wrote the first Bourne book as satire, wishing to mock thriller fiction in the same manner as Cervantes tried to kill off knight-errantry. Perhaps, like Ludlum, Brown is laughing all the way to the bank.)