I'm not supporting Dan Brown, in case that's what your comment's about - I got this from a second hand store, and the only reason I bought it was because I figured if it was really bad, I could use it as kindling since a horrible work of crap that doesn't even deserve the title of "fiction" hardly qualifies as a real book. :p
... The more I read of it, the more I want to dump it into the stove, to be honest. I thought the albino character was bad even before it got into the self-mutilation thing. Now, whenever that character shows up, I get the urge to go find Dan Brown and shove the book up a very uncomfortable area, for three reasons: 1) He couldn't have picked a more stereotypical henchman if he tried. 2) I know someone who has albinism, and this blatant sterotyping and demonization is insulting ("ZOMG! He has red eyes! He looks like a demon!" - paraphrased reaction of a character on seeing the albino guy, and if that's not demonization, I don't know what is). 3) The vast majority of people who self-mutilate don
( ... )
Oh, and the "Arsegravy" comment, now that I think about it, is quite accurate when describing that swill. *is getting less and less impressed with the book as she reads on*
And when he starts throwing out pieces of Gnostic gospels likely written 200-300 AD, and using them to support his conclusions, I just get very twitchy.
Then again, he doesn't have the best track record... the plot of Angels and Demons revolves around an art historian solving in under five hours a trail of clues that confounded the Vatican for centuries. Uh-huh. Sure.
(Yes, same historian/symbologist/whatever he's calling himself now)
The key to finding the villain in Dan Brown books: He makes it really obvious that it's one person. It never is. It is, however, always someone in a position of authority as regards the situation. Because only important people come up with insanely convoluted schemes. Yes.
I have to say that this is one of my greater dissappointments. I figured, if it's on the bestseller list, there must be some redeeming quality to the writing... but no.
Then again, considering the junk that gets onto alot of the bestseller lists, I suppose I shouldn't have been suprised. :\
It still baffles me that Da Vinci is still on the Bestseller's list after 150 weeks! It's a mediocre book with a mediocre plot and it's all based on a zany "cover-up" which none of its supporters have no evidence to back up.
Actually, I'd say it's worse than mediocre. His characterization is horrible. So far we've got more two-dimensional walking stereotypes than I can count and a flaming Stu. And I've only made it halfway through the third chapter.
Heh. Yeah. Not only is it utter rubbish as far as "based on fact" goes, it's also crap reading. Which makes it all the more humiliating that I was actually impressed the first time I read it.
Comments 20
Reply
I'm not supporting Dan Brown, in case that's what your comment's about - I got this from a second hand store, and the only reason I bought it was because I figured if it was really bad, I could use it as kindling since a horrible work of crap that doesn't even deserve the title of "fiction" hardly qualifies as a real book. :p
... The more I read of it, the more I want to dump it into the stove, to be honest. I thought the albino character was bad even before it got into the self-mutilation thing. Now, whenever that character shows up, I get the urge to go find Dan Brown and shove the book up a very uncomfortable area, for three reasons: 1) He couldn't have picked a more stereotypical henchman if he tried. 2) I know someone who has albinism, and this blatant sterotyping and demonization is insulting ("ZOMG! He has red eyes! He looks like a demon!" - paraphrased reaction of a character on seeing the albino guy, and if that's not demonization, I don't know what is). 3) The vast majority of people who self-mutilate don ( ... )
Reply
I was quoting the Great Stephen Fry - an Angel-King clothed in flesh! - who, when asked what he thought of TDVC, said "Utter Arsegravy!"
Reply
Oh, and the "Arsegravy" comment, now that I think about it, is quite accurate when describing that swill. *is getting less and less impressed with the book as she reads on*
Reply
And when he starts throwing out pieces of Gnostic gospels likely written 200-300 AD, and using them to support his conclusions, I just get very twitchy.
Then again, he doesn't have the best track record... the plot of Angels and Demons revolves around an art historian solving in under five hours a trail of clues that confounded the Vatican for centuries. Uh-huh. Sure.
(Yes, same historian/symbologist/whatever he's calling himself now)
The key to finding the villain in Dan Brown books: He makes it really obvious that it's one person. It never is. It is, however, always someone in a position of authority as regards the situation. Because only important people come up with insanely convoluted schemes. Yes.
Reply
Then again, considering the junk that gets onto alot of the bestseller lists, I suppose I shouldn't have been suprised. :\
Reply
Whoo.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment