I always knew I would end up reading this book, although I had not read any of the other books he'd written, because I took a class on The Divine Comedy when I was in college.
My teacher was an expert on symbols in medieval art and the images and allusions that appear in Dante's poem. He spent each class unpacking allusions. He illustrated his lectures with slides of art he'd photographed all over Italy. Good times. No really, I loved that class.
So I'd probably like this book, I thought.
Ironically, at the point where I'd just completed the first seven chapters or so, I read a column in the Guardian or the Telegraph about the gratuitous stupidities in Brown's writing. For instance, there is a line in the description of a young doctor, in one of the first chapters, that is redundant, clumsy, and cliched. Of course, using cliched descriptions, hackneyed phrases, and stereotypes as a substitute for characterization seems to be a hallmark of the suspense writer. This writer acknowledged that while Brown's style stinks, his style has actually improved greatly. I bet that's true.
What I found was that I found the book engrossing and delightful despite Brown's frequent insertions of facts that had no place in the narrative, and chase scenes that read like travelogues.
I think I felt secretly pleased that Brown recited facts that some readers would never otherwise have any exposure to, or interest. But, I don't think Brown unpacked very many images, and I imagine that treating Dante's work in greater depth would have hampered the narrative.
Some of the suspense was well done, I thought, and some of it seemed a little tricky to me.
I also found the ending a little contrived, and I didn't quite believe the twist. I read the book in two days, which I certainly regard as a strong recommendation. Really loved it.
This is another apocalyptic novel; in this case, the suspense revolves around a one-man bioterrorism plot. I don't want to spoil the ending, but Brown raises serious issues that I suspect most readers will just ignore.
Who says art history doesn't pay? They certainly haven't met Dan Brown.
This is quite funny, and a "spot on" parody of Brown's style:
http://bit.ly/1fvWZxy
My teacher was an expert on symbols in medieval art and the images and allusions that appear in Dante's poem. He spent each class unpacking allusions. He illustrated his lectures with slides of art he'd photographed all over Italy. Good times. No really, I loved that class.
So I'd probably like this book, I thought.
Ironically, at the point where I'd just completed the first seven chapters or so, I read a column in the Guardian or the Telegraph about the gratuitous stupidities in Brown's writing. For instance, there is a line in the description of a young doctor, in one of the first chapters, that is redundant, clumsy, and cliched. Of course, using cliched descriptions, hackneyed phrases, and stereotypes as a substitute for characterization seems to be a hallmark of the suspense writer. This writer acknowledged that while Brown's style stinks, his style has actually improved greatly. I bet that's true.
What I found was that I found the book engrossing and delightful despite Brown's frequent insertions of facts that had no place in the narrative, and chase scenes that read like travelogues.
I think I felt secretly pleased that Brown recited facts that some readers would never otherwise have any exposure to, or interest. But, I don't think Brown unpacked very many images, and I imagine that treating Dante's work in greater depth would have hampered the narrative.
Some of the suspense was well done, I thought, and some of it seemed a little tricky to me.
I also found the ending a little contrived, and I didn't quite believe the twist. I read the book in two days, which I certainly regard as a strong recommendation. Really loved it.
This is another apocalyptic novel; in this case, the suspense revolves around a one-man bioterrorism plot. I don't want to spoil the ending, but Brown raises serious issues that I suspect most readers will just ignore.
Who says art history doesn't pay? They certainly haven't met Dan Brown.
This is quite funny, and a "spot on" parody of Brown's style:
http://bit.ly/1fvWZxy
No comments:
Post a Comment