# Discussion on Specific Authors & Books > Author List: >  Brown, Dan

## TheLhix

Ok, I know its a very modern offer but, I have heard some reviews on his works. I came here wanting to see what people thought of him on the community I trust most. 


Is he worth investing in? Is he worth reading? Is his style decent?

----------


## Volya

From what I've heard from everyone else on this site and all literary critics, he is the worst writer to ever exist and his books are the most awful ever written (apart from Twilight).
Personally, I think they're alright. Not a literary masterpiece, but a decent read all the same.

----------


## Shevek

If you think "cut through traffic like a knife" is good prose, then he might the author for you.

----------


## loe

> Is he worth investing in?


No.




> Is he worth reading?


No.




> Is his style decent?


No.

----------


## Volya

Never did understand why he gets so much hate.

----------


## loe

I wouldn't say it's hate.
He is just a very bad writer who only rehashes/ruminates ideas of others in a completely untalented way of writing. His success is done by a great marketing.

----------


## Volya

It's a matter of opinion. Some people love him, some people criticize him.

----------


## Bleeding Pawn

Because the author knows that some readers feeds on the conspiracy theories thrown at them. His books, Dan Brown that is, seems to be tailor-made for the hollywood industry with all the high-end adrenaline chases around the city and all that stuff about some ancient hidden secrets. The main thing he got recognised globally was due to the interference of The Vatican, objecting to his bestseller Da Vinci Code which propelled him to overnight stardom and which paved way for his works to being adapted into movies.( $$$)

The same can be said about Miss/Mrs. J.K. Rowling, in her first three books it was a tightly packed plot confined to no more than 350 pages ( UK editions) but then as her popularity grew so did the pages and the more heavier her books became, especially in The Goblet of Fire (fourth book) she wandered away from the direct plot and experimented with some glitzy stuffs not necessarily needed in the concept.

----------


## Chance33

> Because the author knows that some readers feeds on the conspiracy theories thrown at them. His books, Dan Brown that is, seems to be tailor-made for the hollywood industry with all the high-end adrenaline chases around the city and all that stuff about some ancient hidden secrets. The main thing he got recognised globally was due to the interference of The Vatican, objecting to his bestseller Da Vinci Code which propelled him to overnight stardom and which paved way for his works to being adapted into movies.( $$$)


I agree entirely. It was not the talent of him being an author, but the misconstrued "facts" that he states to make wild assumptions to provide a skeptical plot with twists and random other facts to tie it all together. So, naturally, perfect content for a typical Hollywood movie. And also, lets be honest, anything with the Vatican in it is going to draw attention... Especially attention from the Vatican.


While partly true, I do flinch at the comparison to J.K. Rowling.

Overall, Dan Brown's works are not for those who value any sort of good literature. Unless you want a good laugh.

----------


## mona amon

> While partly true, I do flinch at the comparison to J.K. Rowling.


Me too. Rowling so often gets unfairly clubbed together with Dan Brown when she far outclasses him in originality, wit, style, imagination...everything, and that's not saying much in Rowling's favour as it is easy to outclass Dan Brown. They are simply not in the same league.

----------


## Bleeding Pawn

Quote Originally Posted by Chance33 View Post
While partly true, I do flinch at the comparison to J.K. Rowling.




> Me too. Rowling so often gets unfairly clubbed together with Dan Brown when she far outclasses him in originality, wit, style, imagination...everything, and that's not saying much in Rowling's favour as it is easy to outclass Dan Brown. They are simply not in the same league.


It was not about her talent in general but about the route she took from the fourth book , which is obvious, and no i wasn't comparing Brown and Rowling professionally but just pointing out some fair bit of similarities and motives in their respective works.

----------


## Aylinn

The plot in Dan Brown books is not even that exciting. I read one and it's something like this. Someone is presented as a bad guy and someone else a good guy and it turns out that the bad guy is in fact good and the good guy is in fact bad. (And it can be very easily figured out way before the ending) Initially I could not believe someone may resort to such an easy trick to make a story for adults. J.K. Rowling can be excused for using it because she made a story for children.

----------


## mona amon

> It was not about her talent in general but about the route she took from the fourth book , which is obvious, and no i wasn't comparing Brown and Rowling professionally but just pointing out some fair bit of similarities and motives in their respective works.


I wasn't really referring to your post, but to the general tendency to club Rowling along with writers like Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer when dismissing popular literature, but anyway I do not see what motives, number of pages, glitzy stuff, etc. have to do with it. Any work should be judged on its own merits, not checked off against a list of arbitrary criteria.

----------


## Bleeding Pawn

The same can be said about Harry Potter books for example the character Severus Snape, throughout the series he was portrayed as the bad guy even though it was obvious he had a soft spot for Harry , more like a machiavellian attitude. In the fourth book Prof. Moody seemed to be a good guy but he turned out to be on the evil side, Peter Pettigrew was also thought to be a good guy but turned out otherwise, same can be said about Sirius Black.

In a way yes, we can say that J.K rates higher than Brown, when it concerns talents and good marketing, thats why she left no stone unturn to glean out every last penny out of the series. Well some people can be excused as they possess the 'License to make $$'.

----------


## Bleeding Pawn

*****

----------


## Chance33

> The same can be said about Harry Potter books for example the character Severus Snape, throughout the series he was portrayed as the bad guy even though it was obvious he had a soft spot for Harry , more like a machiavellian attitude. In the fourth book Prof. Moody seemed to be a good guy but he turned out to be on the evil side, Peter Pettigrew was also thought to be a good guy but turned out otherwise, same can be said about Sirius Black.


Would you rather every character that is portrayed as good be good and those portrayed as bad be bad?

----------


## Bleeding Pawn

> Would you rather every character that is portrayed as good be good and those portrayed as bad be bad?


Its not about my choice , was just pointing out the predictability of certain characters created by these two respected authors and some similarity to go with it. Have to say though that Sir Leigh ( Da Vinci Code) turning out to be the main antagonist was surprising compared to Snapes`( Harry Potter) change of heart.

----------


## Chance33

> Its not about my choice , was just pointing out the predictability of certain characters created by these two respected authors and some similarity to go with it. Have to say though that Sir Leigh ( Da Vinci Code) turning out to be the main antagonist was surprising compared to Snapes`( Harry Potter) change of heart.


Yes, although we must also remember that the Harry Potters are first and foremost children novels, and should probably be evaluated as such. And predictability and certain character developments don't require as much for a younger audience. 
Although after reading the Dan Brown series, I would say that I would have been perfectly capable reading his novels when I was younger and read Harry Potter, even though his series is targeted for an adult audience. 
And I think it better said that Snape didn't necessarily have a change of heart, but his true identity and his love for Lily went unnoticed by Harry until the end. His love for his mother was his one redeemable trait, but it was always there in sort of a pseudo- Heathcliff way in that it defined everything that he did.

----------

