Poorly written novels w/ a decent/good idea??

Anything written by Stephen King.
I also agree with whomever said Twilight.

 

Stephen King, I think, is a mix. Some of his books were bad, and many were far too long. Others were great. He's a master at creating believable characters, but often he goes far too long describing things that nobody could possibly care about. Another problem is that his stories sometimes seem to go nowhere. He also has several books that are good books with bad endings.

I don't see a single similarity between Sophie Neveu and Vittoria Vetra besides gender.

"First time around.." You mean you read Dan Brown's novels, more than once? All four of them? I rarely re-read any novel, not because I don't like re-reading, but because there are about ten thousand books I'd really like to read. I recall you mentioning a re-read, and I find it... interesting, that you're so critical of someone you read more than once. I did re-read Da Vinci Code, however, for academic purposes, to study his writing, and I enjoyed it both times around. That's a very rare case of me reading a book more than once. I find it interesting that you liked them the first time, but not the second time. Did the books change?

By the way -- so much focus on character... character is not plot. You said the plots were the same. Even if Sophie and Vittoria were identical, that would have no bearing on plot. Many classic detective authors, for example, write about different detectives with different names in different stories, and the detectives are virtually identical, but the stories are different. I still don't see the similarity (aside from the words "Langdon" and "murder") between, Langdon investigating four Cardinals getting kidnapped and murdered at four different churches that lead to the secret location of the Illuminati while antimatter was stolen that could destroy the Vatican, and the mystery behind murder of the Pope, and, Langdon falsely suspected of the murder of a Louvre museum curator and the secret of Jesus' bloodline passed through Leonardo Da Vinci to the present day, and the search for clues leading to the documents proving that bloodline, while an albino monk tries to kill Langdon.

Even if you proved that every character was identical (they're not) that has not a thing to do with plot. Plot isn't characters. Story is characters.

To illustrate that point: Nearly every television program uses the same characters, over and over again, yet you can't say that the Seinfeld episode where they were waiting for the table at the Chinese restaurant had the same plot as the Seinfeld episode where Kramer was driving the mail truck on mother's day, following Jerry's stolen car with Elaine's bosses JFK golf clubs, even though they all had the same characters exactly.

And... I have to keep coming back to this, because if all other arguments fail, this one is incontrovertable : The original claim was that all his books are the same. Then focus transferred to Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Even if the plots of these were identical (they're not) and the characters were identical (they're not) the most you could prove is that two of his four books were the same. Where is the similarity to Deception Point? (My favorite of his novels!)

I have a problem seeing Deception Point as being in the same genre as the others, let alone having the same plot. Okay, it was a thriller novel, but it was a political, science fiction thriller novel. The others neither involved politics nor did they involve science fiction.

We've really taken the easy route for you, comparing two in a series, which would of course have some similarities as a basic consequence of their being part of a series. The real challenge to proving your point would be to prove that Deception Point was the same as Da Vinci Code, and that Digital Fortress was the same as Angels & Demons.

Is Gabrielle Ashe the same as (toungue-in-cheek) Sophie Vetra and Vittoria Neveu?

In fact, never mind the characters, we're talking plot -- is the discovery of the meteor under the Earth with fossils, and the effect on the Presidential election, and on and on... is that the same as the Jesus - Magdaline thing, which is the same as the antimatter thing?

Do they all have the same format -- say, as if the Harry Potter books began with Harry at the Dursley's getting treated poorly, and then, escaped with his magical friends, and got on the train, and had to get his books, and then, the school year began, and something mysterious was happening that suggested Voldemort had returned -- something like that?

I disagree that they were the same, but if they were, there's nothing wrong with that -- the Harry Potter books, as I demonstrated, were all the same. Much more similar, say, then Da Vinci Code and Deception Point. But I find myself repeating myself.

Charlie

PS. I didn't find Dan Brown hard to read. If anything, he took some very complicated concepts and made them very, very simple.

PPS. I can't bitch about everything Stephen King has written for the last 15 years because, aside from having a really crummy ending, "Cell" was actually an awesome book. I also liked several of the "Dark Tower" series, some of which were written less than 15 years ago, though I haven't read the last one yet. We can complain about some of the other ones though.

Edit:

To cover the Stephen King books of the last 15 years I've read:

"Cell" was a great book, bad ending.

I liked "Blaze."

I found "The Colorado Kid" unbearable and pointless.

"The Girl Who Loved Tom Gorden" was pretty good, a nice lazy read.

I like most of the "Dark Tower" series, though I didn't care for Book 4.

"From a Buick 8," weird but fairly pointless.

"Black House," forgettable.

"Blood and Smoke," I liked.

"On Writing" had some good advice, some advice I didn't agree with, overall good though.

The others, over the last 15 years, I didn't read.

So he's about 50/50 with books I liked or didn't like.

Edited in, on Dan Brown and research:

I never researched CERN, anti-matter, NSA code breakers or the Priory of Scion. However, before I read the Da Vinci Code, I had read several nonfiction books about the Gnostic Gospels, and translations of the Gnostic Gospels themselves. I had an interest in them, before reading the Da Vinci Code. I read Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels," a translation of the complete Naj Hammadi library, and several other books. I find the subject fascinating. I've since read one of the "anti-Dan Brown" books, one of the ones seeking to debunk him. I find it peculiar, that people want to debunk a book that is admittedly fiction.

I also take middle ground on how much was accurate. I believe Dan Brown's descriptions of Da Vinci's art were fairly accurate, and, when I look at the Last Supper painting, I can't help but agree with Dan Brown's characters that the person to Jesus' right appears to be a female. This is probably a visual coincidence, but who knows? Those who back Dan Brown's work over-exaggerate the accuracy of his descriptions of the Gnostic gospels, while those seeking to debunk him over-exaggerate the inaccuracies. I take his inaccuracies as artistic license, and realize this is a work of fiction.

That many believed, even in the early centuries of Christianity, that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, is accurate. Whether he did or not cannot be known. When comparing the canonical gospels with the gnostic, I personally find peculiar the references in the canonical gospels to "the beloved disciple," who orthodox tradition claims is John, yet who is entirely unnamed in the canonical gospels and speculation allows to be anyone -- and who the gnostic gospels as early as the 2nd century and possibly earlier claimed was Mary Magdalene.

That the Gnostic gospels portrayed a "more human" Jesus is inaccurate, with the exception of the early works -- for example, the sayings Gospel of Thomas portrayed a very human Jesus and was devoid of miracles. This is also true of the canonical gospels -- Mark was the first canonical gospel written, and his portrayal of Jesus was more human than the later canonical gospel, and the last written, John, had the most divine portrayal of Jesus. Most of the Gnostic gospels, however, portrayed a Jesus even more miraculous than any of the canonical gospels -- and most of them were written much later. The speculations about what occurred at the Council of Nicaea were inaccurate, but with grains of truth. Few present were likely to have accepted the Gnostic gospels -- and some present wanted to reject Revelation, which was ultimately accepted. Then again, and this is what the critics keep forgetting: These weren't claims made by Dan Brown. They were claims made by Leigh Teabang, the villain in a Dan Brown novel.

 

I totally agree with everyone on Twilight and Dan Brown. Twilight was really creative and an interesting idea, but it was poorly executed.

Dan Brown's stuff just didn't seem very good to me either. The DaVinci Code was really predictable (like the answers to the questions he's looking for), and the writing really wasn't spectacular in my opinion. It really didn't keep my attention at all. I still read the whole thing, but it took me almost a year. I just couldn't read it for very long at a time, because I was bored with it. I really thought the idea was fantastic, but his style really turned me off of it. I normally love things like that.

I really didn't like Tracy Chevalier's The Lady and the Unicorn. It was just so trivial and superficial, which was disappointing. I really enjoyed some of her other works like Falling Angels and The Virgin Blue.

 

Going through this it is interesting to see how many people feel the same way about Dan Brown. I agree, decent concept, but written badly...
Twilight saga... I can't believe that it is so huge! When I read it for the first time I couldn't believe that no one else noticed how horribly written it is...well until I found this thread!

 

I'm glad people have recognised Stephen King as having brilliant ideas and really rotten writing.

I'm also going to (again) bring up Martina Cole*. Excellent plots, just terrible terrible writing.













*yes, I am still really annoyed at that book, and I still want my money back.

 

I do love Stephen King's characters. More then once I found myself missing them as soon as I flipped the last page.

As far as the Dan Brown goes, I don't think better writing would have saved them for me. The Da Vinci Code felt like little more then mental masturbation :\

But for a story I would have enjoyed more, perhaps Anthem. I loved what was being said, but well, Ayn Rand has an... interesting style?

 

I agree. I liked the book when it first came out but i couldnt even finish the last few. The movie was really bad if you had read the book.

Another book I hated was Lord of the Flies by Willian Golding. I liked the ideas behind it and what all the symbols and motifs ment but the story itself wasnt appealing. Naked boys on an island killing eachother. Eh.

 

*Throws down gauntlet*
Lord of the Flies? I don't think so. You might be able to get away with that sort of nonsense in the "worst book you ever had to read" thread, but not here
Golding is an incredible writer...his prose is great, his use of symbolism and metaphor is near perfect, the layers of meaning and the ideas behind it all make it a great book to read and analyse. If all you took away from the book was "Naked boys on an island killing each other", I would suggest you reread it until you realise that even on a totally superficial level the book is about more than that.

And the writing isn't bad at all, therefore it doesn't belong in this category. QED!

 

I won't lie about it. When I first read Twilight, I was captivated just like all the other fourteen year old girls around me. I was a fan for awhile, but as the books continued to come out, one after the other, each getting progressively worse, I began to realize just how awful the writing really was. I give Stephanie Meyer points for her creativity, but to this day I still haven't finished Breaking Dawn, and I never will.

As for the Dan Brown debate, I honestly can't say much about it as I've read The Da Vinci code but once and haven't revisited it since. The same goes with Digital Fortress. Perhaps if I read it again, I might recognize some of the poorer aspects of his writing, but for now he's definitely going to linger towards the top of my favorite author's list, some four or five people below Mark Z. Danielewski.

One book series that definitely stands out in my mind, however, is the series that my best friend pretty much forced me into reading. The Dark Hunter series by Sherrilyn Kenyon. The idea is actually pretty decent at a first glance, but even first time readers can tell how horrendous her writing is. Suffice to say, I'm not going to be reading the other 19 or 20 books in the series. One was plenty enough for me.