The worst book you've ever read or had to have read

I'm a Dan Brown fan, and I've seen a lot of Dan Brown criticism in these boards, much of which I've personally disagreed with. I'm curious what your specific objection is.

I actually figured out one thing I don't like about his novels, and I haven't heard anyone hit upon it yet.

I'll name two things, but these are more specific to specific books:
1.) As a computer programmer, I found "Digital Fortress" lacking in real understanding of computer technology.
2.) The atrocious ending of "Angels & Demons", thankfully fixed in the movie. (WARNING: Next line is a spoiler.) The idea that Robert Langdon could have survived a fall from a helicopter, by using a big piece of cardboard as a parachute or makeshift glider, is just too great a stretch of credulity.

I found an overall problem with Dan Brown's writing, and it seems to me to be an issue in most if not all of his books, including his latest book, The Lost Symbol, which I'm currently reading and enjoying. I haven't found anyone yet who noted the problem, besides myself, but I'll wait to find out your specific issue before stating mine.

Charlie

 

The Kitchen God's Wife by Amy Tan,
I read this in Middle School for summer reading and the biggest problem I have is the fact that it was on the reading list.

Well anyway, if I read the book now I probably wouldn't dislike it as much as I do, but it is definitely not a favourite book of mine.

 

Re: Dan Brown

Simple.

The writing is terrible.

 

That's not a specific issue. That's just an insult.

What's terrible about it, specifically?

No offense, but vague statements like this are not valuable in assessing or reviewing a person's writings.

Charlie

 

I haven't read any of Dan Brown's books, but I have heard a lot of the complaining. Most of them are just an extension of the things you brought up. You said that he didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote computer stuff. It seems that he does that with a lot of subjects that are key to his stories, whether it be programming, catholic history, or anything else. TVtropes even has a trope named after him, you've been Dan Browned when you read something that seems well researched, until you actually gain some knowledge about it.

 

There, I'd have to disagree. (And I really can't see how someone who has never read his books could criticize his writing... I really object to having a discussion of an author's book with someone who has never read any of the books but has already decided their opinions of the books without reading them based on the opinions of others. I'm then really disagreeing with a third party, not with you... you're just accepting the opinions of someone else as if they were fact.)

His books are actually very well researched, and show remarkable knowledge. For example, his descriptions of artwork and churches is phenomenal.

In another thread, someone complained that they're too well researched, and that he sometimes goes into "info dump" mode, and, while I also disagree with that comment, I think it's a fairer comment than the vague comments, or the comments about the controversies from those who never even read the books.

Sometimes, parts of his writings are simply fiction and are never intended to be anything but.

The greatest criticisms leveled against the Da Vinci Code (which is only one book, not many, but when some people say "Dan Brown's books" that's really the one they mean) and I've read several of the books that are critical of that book, are largely leveled at the claims of one of the characters in the book, who happens to be the villain. Dan Brown has even said, he doesn't necessarily agree with the viewpoints of his characters.

Fundamentally, many of his claims were correct, and in fact, everything he claimed was a "fact" in his "fact page," were indeed, factual. The ancient "Gospel of Mary Madeline" does exist, for example. All he claimed on the "fact page" was that the artwork and churches described were accurate (they were) and that the documents described exist (they do.) It's the imagination of people that extend his claims further than they ever were... or that cannot accept that the rest is fiction, and is intended to be fiction.

The problem I referred to in "Digital Fortress" was of a different nature. As a computer programmer, I found the concept of the computer virus described in the book to be muddled, especially when it comes to time line, as, through multi-tasking, super-computers can process more data much faster than his book seemed to suggest.

On the other hand, as someone who read the Gnostic Gospels before reading the Da Vinci Code, I had no problems accepting the fiction and the fact and separating the two... and am well aware that that some facts that some claim are not factual, actually are factual, and that that particular criticism of Dan Brown is therefore unfounded.

But all this really has nothing to do with criticism of Dan Brown as a fiction writer.

I've never heard of this "tropes" thing, but it appears to be comedy--hardly true literary criticism.

I'd really rather that someone who read his books, and has a specific literary issue, especially the person who said it in the first place, respond.

I myself have a literary issue with his writing... but have yet to see anyone complain about it. All I've seen is vague statements ("his writing is terrible") or issues involving the controversies (in this case, from someone who never read any of his 5 books!).

Now, I'm almost afraid to post my criticism. I imagine people jumping on it and saying, "See, he sucks!" Instead of using it to further their understanding of writing, and errors that even a professional writer may let creep into the writing.

Charlie

 

*facepalm*

I wasn't telling you my opinions on the book. I was summing up the complaints I have heard in the hope that you might see the similarities between your complaint and theirs. But I guess there's just no talking to fanboys.

 

Please don't call me a "fanboy." I'm a 44 year old man, first of all, and was hoping for an intelligent conversation about the writing of a specific author.

Please avoid statements like your last line, I've seen the mods lock threads for lesser statements, and I do think this is an interesting thread.

Charlie

 

Bull****. That post contained nothing even approaching intelligent conversation. When you willingly misinterpret somebody's words that badly you have thrown away any right to civility.

It's about time this thread died anyway.

 

What did I misinterpret? I spoke only about Dan Brown's writing.

"Willfully" suggests intent. Let me assure you, I did not intend to misinterpret anything.

When have I not been civil? I don't think it's too much to ask, that you not call me names. I haven't called you or anyone else a name.

Are you suggesting you're intentionally trying to derail the thread and get it locked?

 

You misinterpreted my intention for posting and told me that you didn't want to talk with me about why people don't like the books.

I'm saying that it's worth having the thread locked to call you out on your jackassery. You are not interested in intelligent conversation, only in establishing your opinion. You make long-winded speaches and then refuse to even take two seconds thought on what the responses actually mean. That is the essential core of fanboyism, and your age only makes it worse. You should be smarter than that.

 

I think it would be Rick Riordan's Maze of Bones

 

No, that's a misinterpretation.

What I said was that I was specifically looking for responses from people who read the books--especially the person who I replied to.

I never said, "I don't want to talk to you."

That's not a very nice thing to say.

You are incorrect.

I confess, I do go on at length. Too much detail is a weakness of mine.
I apologize for my verbosity.

I actually think I spent too much time on it... thus, my verbosity.

More namecalling. Actually, "fanboyism" suggests a noncritical view of the subject matter--a Star Trek "fanboy," for example, would never fault William Shatner on anything.

I clearly pointed out problems in Dan Brown's work, such as his computer issues, and the atrocious ending to "Angels & Demons."

I'm interested in hearing about actual issues in his writing, from those who have read his writing.

Now, if I misunderstood your point--you initially seemed to me to be criticizing Dan Brown based on what you heard from others, not merely a conveyor of information--then that's a fair misunderstanding. It doesn't suggest I'm a "fanboy" or anything bad about me. This may surprise you, but if you knew me, you'd actually think I'm a nice guy.

It wasn't an unreasonable misunderstanding, considering how many times at the mere mention of Dan Brown, people I've known who never read his books have gotten up-in-arms about how terrible the man is. If that wasn't your intent, then let me apologize for misunderstanding that.

I have actually read some of the books out there alleging to "debunk the Da Vinci Code," etc. It wasn't my initial intent discuss that (though my detail-oriented verbosity sometimes takes me into tangents)--but his work as a fiction writer.

Charlie

 

One of the big reasons they get up in arms is because you get up in arms when a criticizm comes along.

And how is

anything but "I don't want to talk to you"?

The people who get all up in arms are people who have read his writing. I've seen them express the flaws to you only to have you dismiss them out of hand with another "verbose" post.

 

You appear to be the one over-reacting here. He didn't misinterpret your words as they are presented. You said something about TVtropes and how "Dan Browning" something is to make it appear as if it is well-researched when it is, in fact, not.

That may not be your personal belief, in which case I'm not sure why CharlieVer's disproving of that statement in any way, shape or form makes you angry. And if it is your personal belief, then you should be a civil person and try to back up that claim.

 

By no means.

One specific example I had in mind when I wrote that was a conversation I had that went something like this:

"I'm writing a book."
"Oh, really, what's it about?"
"It's a thriller novel. Sort of like the Da Vinci Code."
"Oh, so you mean it's an evil work of Satan?"

That was a real conversation. I did not know that my friend, who I ran into after many years, had become a strong evangelical Christian with strong feelings about the Da Vinci Code, having never read it.

It's been my observation, generally, that there are some people who never read it but still have strong feelings about it. I was under the impression that you were like that. I've already apologized for that misapprehension, and don't feel the need to apologize again... to someone who has un-apologetically suggested that I am a fanboy jackass.

I was hoping for responses from people who read his books and have specific criticisms. That's no insult to you.

To my statement that you quoted--there's a difference between "I don't want to talk to you" and "I object to discussing a book with someone who never actually read it." I'll gladly talk to you (if you decided to be nice) but I still don't think we could have an intelligent conversation about a book you never read and, having never read it, couldn't possibly have an informed opinion on.

I'll confess to you right now, I never read "War and Peace." I've read some criticisms of it. I would never try to engage you in a conversation about the book, because I don't have an informed opinion on it. I would expect that those on both sides of the book would find little value in my opinion on that matter--that doesn't mean they don't want to talk to me about anything. I don't think my looking up "War and Peace" on tropes or whatever the site is, would constitute me having valuable input on the book.

And you know what--if I did say something about "War and Peace," and someone, whether fan or critic of the book, objected to what I said, I wouldn't get angry or call him a fanboy. (And I certainly wouldn't call him a jackass!) I would be like, "Okay, no biggie, I never really read the thing so I really don't know." Because, honestly, I don't care about "War and Peace" one way or the other.

By the way, I do think that, while sometimes verbose, my posts do have something to say, something of value about the topic matter being discussed.

Charlie

Off topic aside: One of my favorite quotes from the 1978 Superman movie, Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor said:

"Some read 'War and Peace' and get out if it, that it's a light adventure story. Others read the ingredients on a tube of toothpaste and unlock the secrets of the universe."

 

I dont really see in the title, debate or argue or go on for a dozen pages and so forth.

If someone desnt like a book for a reason, its their opinion to post it here and discuss why. Its not up for anyone to come in and say well not, this is how it is or how i have heard others say.

Im getting sick of this dan brown debatig that seems to do the rounds every 3 months. Come on guys, move on or at least take it somewhere else.

 

I don't see him mentioning the Tvtropes comment, do you? Where did you read that? Can I see a quote?

I don't give a rat's ass if he doesn't agree with me. What I'm getting up in arms about is his condescension and refusal to actually listen to what the other side is saying.

Charlie. The complaints everybody brings out essentially boil down to "he doesn't know what he's talking about." Your complaints with Dan Brown's works boil down to "he doesn't know what he's talking about with computers and the laws of physics." Do you not see the similarities? You don't have to be a War and Peace expert to figure out why a lot of folks don't want to read it.

 

Uh huh, I agree with you.

Please don't argue because people have their own opinions and it is not for you to judge. I don't mean to offend anyone but the thread didn't actually specify "debate others' thoughts" as in "What is the worst book you have ever read? Argue with others if they don't like what you like" It was clearly stated that we need to specify the worst book we have ever read ONLY, not to argue about them. Arguing would seem that you guys are actually immature that can't accept others' opinions about certain things, because that just won't work. Even if you spill out everything inside your head, it wouldn't necessarily mean that it would change others' thoughts about something. So I would say arguments like these are basically unnecessary.

 

Wow... first I was too verbose, now I didn't provide enough information. I suppose I should have mentioned the Tvtropes comment. That would, of course, have made my post longer, albeit more clear. I did mention it, though--I said it was comedy, remember?

That was part of my assessment that you agreed with Tvtropes, and did not like the book you didn't read.

No condescension is intended. That may be a case where, on online forums, you can't hear the sound of my voice. What you are interpreting as condescension, is actually, verbosity.

And... listening to what the "other side" is saying? Does name-calling encourage that, in your opinion?

One complaint here, prior to your post was, "he's a terrible writer."

Obviously, some think it has to do with writing ability, and not, knowledge of subject matter.

No, that's not my complaint. The issue wasn't lack of knowledge or research on subject matter, nor "not knowing what he's talking about," but, in weaving his plot, he sometimes stretched the credulity of his fictional points. Fiction is fine--if made real for the reader.

I think even Dan Brown would admit the ending to Angels & Demons was just plain silly. He's probably embarrassed on retrospect. I don't think it has anything to do with physics--heck, I never studied physics--it has to do with plotting. In that case, I think he just took a shortcut. My opinion: He wanted Robert Langdon to survive. He didn't know how to do it. His solution came off as hokey. I would have rather he did something less scientifically plausible--give Langdon an anti-gravity device developed by some great scientist--then what he actually did.

It's all fantasy, but we want fantasy to be at least, hypothetically believable within its construct, even if the construct is a universe where scientifically implausible things can happen, like the anti-gravity device.

I think he really knows his subject matter, I just think, in those two specific cases, he just failed to construct a believable fiction within the confines of that real subject matter.

If you're going to have your character survive falling out of a helicopter, regardless of physics, make it believable fiction. I don't even care if it doesn't fit with science, as long as you convince me, the reader, that it's plausible within your constructed universe.

In the other cases--the artwork, the churches, etc.--I think it's clear that he did extensive research. He really knew his subject matter, and I don't find he had plotting problems there. He used artistic license in Leigh Teabing's opinions of the Gnostic gospels--those are the things "debunking" books are written about. For me, that's just fiction, and I'm fine with it.

No, but you have to have at least read the book to have reasonable knowledge about its content, other than believing the claims of others.

Regardless, I was hoping for a critique of his writing, not his content or his research prowess.

Thanks, at least, for sticking with Dan Brown's writing this time.

Charlie

 

I agree with the both of you.

That's why I discourage name calling, and encourage an attempt to focus on what, specifically, is bad about a particular author's books.

Charlie

 

Anyway, since nobody wants to actually say anything about something they read in Dan Brown's writing that's a problem, I'll make the point I alluded to earlier.

Although I love Dan Brown's books, I have a specific complaint: It has to do with point-of-view.

His books--all of them, I believe--seem to be in limited third-person, from the point of view of a specific character in each chapter, but then he drifts into omniscient third person. I believe, if you're going to write in limited third-person, stay in that POV. Don't drift off and become omniscient narrator, then drift back into limited third person.

One example is in Angels & Demons, where he's writing from Robert Langdon's point of view about 2/3rds of the way into the book, then alludes to Langdon falling from the helicopter at the end. (Omnisicent--Robert Langdon can't possibly know what's going to happen at the end of the book, right now, so you've just torn the reader out of limited third-person narration.)

That was one of the worst cases of it, and, although it was clearly intended for foreshadowing, it seemed to tear me from the story and make me aware I'm reading a book, instead of drawing me deeper into the story.

He does that in all his books, including The Lost Symbol.
First, he's limited third-person, then, all of a sudden, he's omniscient narrator.

Charlie

 

Verbosity and actual information follow the inverse square law.

That could all be re-written:

"I am not saying that he didn't know what he was talking about. I do think he knows what he's talking about. What I'm saying is that the writing broke my suspension of disbelief in those two examples."

 

You're making mountains out molehills here. He QUOTED your Tvtropes comment. Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but if someone quotes a post of yours, I assume they are addressing it and not just putting it in quote tags for added flavor.

You're being angry and unreasonable for literally no reason here. If you have some vendetta against CharlieVer, I suggest not reading his posts.

 

Hardly a scientific maxim, but if accepted, then I withdraw my confession of being verbose, and now deem myself "overly detailed and information overload..."

Sure, if I wanted to omit detail, and some of the points I wanted to make.

Charlie