posted
I think it's a real testament to Brown's skill as an author that he's able to engage his reader's emotions so deeply with his story, and generate enough intellectual interest that people continue to think about and discuss and further research his themes.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A part of me wonders if this is conversation is part of a conspiracy to make writers read Da Vinci code. I mean on three of the four message boards which I frequent, the subject of the Da Vinci code has turned up almost on the same day.
posted
Trousercuit--I used to listen to Art Bell all the time. My one friend still does, and swears by it.
In my mind, to ask why Book X is so successful, is really to ask why *any* work is so successful. Memes and mem-complexes multiply, inhabit headspaces, and a few at a time grow to the point where they catalyze a sort of hundredth-monkey syndrome, slaking into the collective unconscious with mysterious power and panache, until everyone's passing it on. Human consciousness is an odd thing sometimes; utterly irreducible to linear phenomenon, non-algorithmic, operating along principles scarcely guessed at.
posted
Okay, but seriously, let's look at what we can learn here. 1. Ending chapters on cliffhangers works. 2. Clarity of a character's thoughts works--even if it can be overdone. 3. Short chapters makes the action seem quicker. This is important when you remember that a lot of the book happens inside the guy's head looking at puzzles.
Without being snotty, which is oh-so-tempting, what other lessons are there here?
posted
Ending chapters with cliffhangers is something Card does, and it really ticked me off the first time I noticed it. It was as though he deliberately put there in the one place where you couldn't bear to stop, so that you'd stay up all freakin' night to finish the book.
Coming to terms with my OCD helped this because I don't promise myself to stop when I come to the end of a chapter anymore. I can stop at the point when I actually feel like stopping.
P.S. My husband was saying I shouldn't make fun of DVC without reading it again the other day. Really, it's just like making fun of Lucas for the Star Wars Prequels. I mean, I know the DVD will come out eventually and my husband will make me watch it. Maybe. Maybe he'll just save it for something to throw in my face during a future argument. Men say only women do that, but my husband has been married to me for an awfully long time.
[This message has been edited by pooka (edited June 19, 2006).]
posted
This was probably a bad idea but I just posted the first 13 lines of the Da Vinci code in the Published Books forum (reading the description I think I can do that).
posted
Okay well, so I saw the Da Vinci Code last night, (I downloaded it-- HA!) and... it was interesting, as far as movies go. The dialogue was horrible, but I think that was a combination of everyone's fault. Who knows.
The *BIG* mystery was dumb, and predictable, but you all knew that if you've read/seen this work.
I must say though, in reference to Silas, the character; in the movie, he was the most interesting, by far the coolest. I'm sure, however, that this credit goes to the casting person, and perhaps, the actor himself for being so intense..
OMG I just looked it up and it was Paul Bettany. I should've known. I guessed, but then it looked less and less like him as the movie went on. Oh man.. why am I writing about this on this thread. Sorry, but I'm not erasing this. paul bettany rules. I guess what gave it away was the 'nude' scene. Looked very familiar to Knights Tale. HA HA.
What a stupid movie, though. Whatever Dan Brown did right, I'm still jealous of his salary and his book selling.
posted
There's a witty commentary on aspects of The DaVinci Code in the June 2 issue of The National Review, which, I think, neatly sums up Christian objections to Dan Brown's religious themes. (It also has the tidbit of information that Brown is the son of a math professor at Phillips Exeter, which plays into my opinions about who gets ahead and who doesn't. But that's a separate argument.)
Unfortunately, it's not up on their website yet, or I'd try to provide a link...
posted
One thing that he did to get so many to read was that the book was almost written like a screenplay. Every chapter is like a short movie scene that moves the action forward quickly, and raises more questions that it answers until the climax.
I think this is the reason so many people say it's awful while it's so widely popular. Many people who don't particularly enjoy reading pick up a Dan Brown novel and think "Wow, this is great! It's just like watching a movie!" While others who enjoy reading because of all that the medium of literature can provide over that of film, read it and think "Wow, this is awful! It's just like watching a movie!"
posted
Short chapters are becoming more and more common. I'm not fond of them usually. They work with some authors like Robert B Parker, but mostly I find them too jerky.
The alternative I see is frequent scenebreaks. That's almost as bad. It interrupts the narrative too many times. The old long, flowing chapters are more difficult to handle and sometimes some of them could have been improved -- in places -- by a judicious scenebreak.
What is the difference between breaking for a new chapter and breaking for a scenebreak?
Both put extra emphasis on the end of the text before it. I guess the chapter break makes it easier for the reader to put the book down.
posted
Hmm . . . I'll agree that too many really short chapters can make things start to seem choppy. But with long chapters, chapter breaks certainly make a good place to put the book down. With shorter chapters, a chapter break is a good place to think, "I'll read just one more . . ."
I haven't read DVC. Just how short were his chapters? Does anyone know in terms of approximate word count?
posted
Short chapters make it easier for the reader to think, "I can read one more chapter," which means the reader is a little more likely to keep reading.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are numerous possibilities of why some so dislike "The DaVinci Code." There's dislike of bad writing---some among us just can't tolerate it. There's professional jealousy---it's sold great. There's its near-blasphemous take on Catholicism. (I haven't read it---really, it's not my bag.)
On Terry Pratchett---I've only read a couple of his works, but I found them fairly light and breezy reads. They kept me entertained, but didn't stay long in my memory. Worth the time, though.
posted
Reading this thread and a couple of others also on how some published writers and doing so well while the rest of us --Those Who Can See How Bad THEY Are -- can't or can hardly get published...I'm wondering if what we think we know about writing might not be skewed a little to the unrealistic side.
It appears that plot/a good story is more important that how it is written. Or is it? Is our idea(s) of "good writing" flawed?
posted
I'd be happy writing badly and being published regularly. Or at least I think I would be, which at this stage---precisely today, it's thirty-one years since I started writing the first story I intended to submit to a market---is practically the same thing.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
arriki, Survivor put it best when he said that art isn't about being published and making millions. There's more to it than money (although, I'll grant that making cash out of it would be nice). There are some amazing stories out there that have never been huge hits and probably never will, although it's unfortunate that that would be the case. An example for me is The Girl Who Owned A City by O.T. Nelson. This is a story that never hit the shelves with a bang, but when I read it, it struck me as one of the most beautiful pieces ever put to paper. I recommend it every chance I get, but it's so hard to find that I'm sure most people will never find out what I'm talking about. More's the pity.
But you're only looking on one side of the coin. Yes, we bash really popular books--and go on for a while because it's easier to make fun of something than to give praises--but we also give credit to really popular novels that we like. Some have made more money than Dan Brown could ever hope for. Think of J.R.R. Tolkien, Larry Niven, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, Anne McCaffery, Stephen King, Charles Dickens, Orson Scott Card, and J.K. Rowling. William Shakespeare. And we have complaints about even these guys, because let's face it, nobody's perfect. But we still put them on a pedestal because we recognize the talent they have.
It doesn't matter how popular a book may be that measures its worth. The worth is measured by how it makes us feel. Does it make you go "Wow, that was good," or "Yuck!"
posted
I finally saw the movie. Thought it was kinda lame, I was actually expecting better. Silas was definitely interesting to me but I don't know what percentage of that was anything the actor/writer/director did and what percentage was the fact that I personally have a rather messed up Catholic albino ex-boyfriend.
Edit: maybe that's the secret of success for a book or movie. Make a creepy character that mimics one of my ex-boyfriends.
[This message has been edited by Kadri (edited July 05, 2006).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
