The Lost Symbol and The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown's 20 worst sentences

[snopes]

The Lost Symbol, the latest novel by The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown, has gone on sale. We pick 20 of the clumsiest phrases from it and from his earlier works.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...sentences.html

[DawnStorm]

Someone wrote a letter to the Mailbag section of another site I visit. Seems this reader has already spotted a mistake in Brown's latest novel: one character mentions to another that the Redskins are in the playoffs.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Some of this fall into "so bad it's good" category. This is my favourite:-

Five months ago, the kaleidoscope of power had been shaken, and Aringarosa was still reeling from the blow.

[breshears]

Originally Posted by snopes

The Lost Symbol, the latest novel by The Da Vinci http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...sentences.html

I thought these examples were pretty ho-hum, actually. I've certainly seen worse in other novels -- for some reason sex scenes in suspense novels seem to be the most cringe-worthy. I've noticed before that in these types of books (e.g. suspense, thrillers) technical proficiency/writing style often seems to take a backseat to the ability to complete a story. I can't really say that that's unreasonable -- I'm not a bad writer, but I really can't imagine being able to write an entire 400 page book from start to finish, let alone write dozens of them as many popular authors do. I imagine that's a pretty rare skill.

For that reason, I have a great deal of respect for authors who can both write well stylistically as well as tell a story, like Stephen King. I thought On Writing was great. Neil Gaiman's book of short stories, Fragile Things, also blew me away. I've been meaning to re-read it.

Anyway, I just finished The Lost Symbol, and certain plot contrivances/strategies that he used to build up suspense tended to grate on me more than the wording he used, though I had to laugh after he described the villain's "powerful" body in detail for about the 25th time.

[NayShel]

My initial complaint is about points 13 and 12 in the sense that who cares if the names of the machines were changed a little or have imaginary parts - these are works of fiction after all. Then out of curiosity I googled both the 2000EX with pw engines and the Manuhrin MR-93 and it seems that both exist so I'm not sure what Mr. Chiver's point is.

And seriously, don't most people refer to Leonardo Da Vinci as simply Da Vinci? That's just picking nits...

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by NayShel

My initial complaint is about points 13 and 12 in the sense that who cares if the names of the machines were changed a little or have imaginary parts - these are works of fiction after all. Then out of curiosity I googled both the 2000EX with pw engines and the Manuhrin MR-93 and it seems that both exist so I'm not sure what Mr. Chiver's point is.

The point is that it doesn't matter to the story what kind of engines the plane has.

[Andrew of Ware]

I've never read any of Brown's books and the more I hear about them the less I want to do so. Reading those sentences I was reminded of Blackadder talking to the Prince who has just written a book.

Blackadder: Your majesty, do you mind if I change something?

The Prince: Of course. What do you want to change?

Blackadder: The words.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

Some of this fall into "so bad it's good" category. This is my favourite:-

"Did they hit him with the kaleidoscope?"

I also love the Rio de la Plata as one of the great rivers of the Old World.

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by NayShel

And seriously, don't most people refer to Leonardo Da Vinci as simply Da Vinci? That's just picking nits...

No. If his name is shortened, he's referred to as "Leonardo".

I can't believe they were able to narrow it down to 20!

[lyra_silvertongue]

They left out this gem from the new book:

The act of tattooing one’s skin was a transformative declaration of power, an announcement to the world: I am in control of my own flesh. The intoxicating feeling of control derived from physical transformation had addicted millions to flesh-altering practices …. . . cosmetic surgery, body piercing, bodybuilding, and steroids . . . even bulimia and transgendering.

(bold mine)

Not a word, Mr. Brown.

(via here)

[Tarquin Farquart]

For me the fact that the first word of The da Vinci Code is "renowned" says it all.

[Dara bhur gCara]

The thing that really annoys me in Dan Brown books is the phrase "Langdon quickly explained..." because it shows up far too often, and more often than not precedes a six- or seven-page factually-inaccurate explanation. Which, by my calculations, isn't at all quick.

Another thing that annoys me is that Mr Brown could afford to buy me and dip me in gold. I'm not saying he'd want to. But he could.

[Photo Bob]

Irregardless of his talent for writing, or lack thereof, the writing community supports Brown. Each of his books launch a new wave of books, movies and television shows debunking his work. It is an endless circle of book, debunking, book. His work is a cash cow for others.

I am considering joining the trend, though I think debunking Brown is overdone. Instead I will address the works of another famous author. My first book will be "Cracking the Egg - The Truth behind Green Eggs and Ham."

It's fiction people!

Oh well, at least this article is attacking his writing style instead of his plot devices.

Photo "Is it ever advisable to eat green eggs and ham?" Bob

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

The point is that it doesn't matter to the story what kind of engines the plane has.

Yeah I know the complaint is that Brown uses excessive detail in his works. But detail isn't bad. Is Charles Dickens a hack too? What about Tim O'Brien, who wrote my favorite book from my freshman English class, The Things they Carried? O'Brien spends many pages at times literally cataloging the things the soldiers were carrying because (in my interpretation) it served as the running commentary in the soldiers heads they used to keep themselves in the real world.

When I was a young writer, I deliberately avoided irrelevant details and conversations that didn't move the plot forward. I thought those details were "boring" and "stupid" (and maybe "retarded," "gay," and "poopy" too). Naturally, it read like a little kid wrote it.

As I got older, I'd write better scenes, with more detail. I'm most proud of a scene where a character talks to two others about his past. It's not relevant to the plot, but it is relevant to his character. He leans back in his chair, staring out a window, stirring his coffee without drinking it and without looking at his friends. As such, it's much more real than if I had written "He told them he had a rough childhood. Next scene."

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by Amigone201

Yeah I know the complaint is that Brown uses excessive detail in his works. But detail isn't bad.

[snip] What about Tim O'Brien, who wrote my favorite book from my freshman English class, The Things they Carried? O'Brien spends many pages at times literally cataloging the things the soldiers were carrying because (in my interpretation) it served as the running commentary in the soldiers heads they used to keep themselves in the real world".

You're right, detail isn't necessarily bad. But it should serve some purpose, as it seems to in the second example you give. (I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the works you mention - not even Dickens ). What purpose does knowing what kind of engine the plane has have though? Or is it there merely to expand the length of the book and/or make Mr Brown look "clever" by knowing this kind of trivia?

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

What purpose does knowing what kind of engine the plane has have though? Or is it there merely to expand the length of the book and/or make Mr Brown look "clever" by knowing this kind of trivia?

Maybe it's product placement.

[Logoboros]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

You're right, detail isn't necessarily bad. But it should serve some purpose, as it seems to in the second example you give. (I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the works you mention - not even Dickens ). What purpose does knowing what kind of engine the plane has have though? Or is it there merely to expand the length of the book and/or make Mr Brown look "clever" by knowing this kind of trivia?

Furthermore, I'd add that all the specific detail in a story like "The Things They Carried" serves a very specific purpose far beyond adding a little color to the story. It's key device for establishing what life is like for these soldiers; the enormous weight of detail that O'Brien makes the reader wade through replicates the weight of all that gear each soldier has to hump through the jungle.

I don't know the context for the Dan Brown quotes about plane engines, but if the viewpoint character is Langdon or someone else who isn't an expert on types of jets then the detail is particularly inept in addition to being superfluous.

Personally, I'm surprised they didn't include the one line I remember from The Da Vinci Code, when while introducing Langdon, Brown explicitly says something very like "He resembled Harrison Ford" -- which smacked not only of wishful thinking for the inevitable movie adaptation, but also is a particularly hacky kind of shortcut.

[AnglRdr]

I really enjoyed reading The DaVinci Code, and not because it was great literature--it was entertaining. But, yeah, the man writes some really bad sentences.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Dara bhur gCara

Another thing that annoys me is that Mr Brown could afford to buy me and dip me in gold. I'm not saying he'd want to. But he could.

Just out of curiosity, what would that cost?

[Insensible Crier]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

The point is that it doesn't matter to the story what kind of engines the plane has.

I guess you're not a big fan of Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Dara bhur gCara

The thing that really annoys me in Dan Brown books is the phrase "Langdon quickly explained..." because it shows up far too often, and more often than not precedes a six- or seven-page factually-inaccurate explanation. Which, by my calculations, isn't at all quick.

That was my thought too. It reminded me of the movie Clue when a character would talk for awhile and then say, "To make a long story short..." and the rest of the cast would reply, "Too late."