
I don't give a toss about the so-called 'contraversy' - it's been done before, and better.
No, it's just a really, really badly-written book. Dialogue sucks. Characterisation sucks. This Harvard professor (or whatever he is) gets stumped by Da Vinci's backwards writing? Give me a break.
And the characters! You can hear Dan Brown plotting them out
'Hero, well he had to be American, I mean, of course'
'And a French chick who, being French will be spunky and sexy as everyone knows all French chicks are'
'French guy - he's a dick'
'English guy - gay'
Just really annoyed me.
rant off
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:55,
archived)
No, it's just a really, really badly-written book. Dialogue sucks. Characterisation sucks. This Harvard professor (or whatever he is) gets stumped by Da Vinci's backwards writing? Give me a break.
And the characters! You can hear Dan Brown plotting them out
'Hero, well he had to be American, I mean, of course'
'And a French chick who, being French will be spunky and sexy as everyone knows all French chicks are'
'French guy - he's a dick'
'English guy - gay'
Just really annoyed me.
rant off

subjective I suppose. I found it well written. I write myself and have read countless ( worthless really, ) books about creative structure. It does what it says on the cover and is exactly what it purports to be. If it claimed to be litererary genius I would have a differing opinion. I'ts a modern day whodunnit and cleverly set up IMO.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:03,
archived)

for example, some people liked Hitler. This book is a lot like Adolf Hitler. The people who like it are ultimately wrong.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:06,
archived)