I'm so very tired of Maureen Dowd, who jumped the shark ages ago, but she was spot on in her Dan Brown piece.

One positive effect of Dan Brown's work is the transfer of cash from reader's pockets to publisher's pockets. (That always makes publishers feel good. ) The other is surprising effect, and in my mind more important: Masonic lodges in the U.S. are now getting calls from young men curious about the Masonry. Because most Lodges are dying from old age---this is a good thing. Amazing how bad writing can sometimes have worthwhile results.

one of these days, i'm going to have to plunge into a Dan Brown book so that i can have an opinion on all this. but i don't want to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/sep/16/i-dont-hate-dan-brown

for those too lazy to copy/paste link above:

"At first, I got swept up in the spirit: there's great fun in being united with other people in common dislike, so when the buzz on Twitter amongst publishing types turned to scoffing at Dan Brown's new opus, my initial instinct was to join in the #danwho? disdain that reached fever pitch on Tuesday with the publication of The Lost Symbol.

I also hated The Da Vinci Code (I threw it against a wall when I finished it) and have more than once felt a wave of revulsion when noting an otherwise perfectly fanciable man reading it on the tube. But as the angst increased, I began to feel uncomfortable with my spot on the bandwagon: should writers and publishers and literary readers reconsider our attitudes towards Brown?

One of the most common complaints of the #danwho? cohort is that the publication and success of Brown's books is undermining to those of greater merit – in other words, pretty much every book out there. But I'm quite sure that this is spurious: the infusion of cash into the industry that comes from Brown's sales, as with other juggernauts like JK Rowling, will have an overall positive effect. Within Random House, increased profits means that there will be more money to punt on writers that are less of a sure thing (as an RH author, this makes me especially optimistic), while increased traffic at booksellers can only help, rather than hinder, the sales of other books. While there may well be people out there who read The Lost Symbol and think, "Ah, well, that was nice. I look forward to reading another book five years from now, or whenever he finishes the next one. Now, where's that old issue of Heat?" but there will also be other people who think, "Hey! Reading a book is fun. Perhaps I shall try another one." I can't hate Dan Brown for making these things happen.

But what swayed my view even more than these economic arguments was in fact, the poignant revelation that Brown shared a creative writing class at Amherst – one of the US's finest small liberal arts colleges – with David Foster Wallace. No one, I am certain, takes a creative writing course with the aim of writing over-wrought, long-winded, critically-reviled thrillers. You take a creative writing course because you want to be a good writer; because you go back to your dorm room and read the great books on your English Lit course syllabus (or your genius classmate David's coursework) and regard the Pulitzer prize shortlist and think, "One day, that could be me." And then you sit down to write with all the best of intentions, and all that comes out is "The thirty-four-year-old initiate gazed down at the human skull cradled in his palms."

Who hasn't been there? I know I have: when writing my first volume of unabashed commercial non-fiction, every so often I found my mind drifting to the entertaining notion that some insightful critic would read it and say, "Ah, this volume of unabashed commercial non-fiction actually has surprising literary merit!" But I know that I will be waiting for ever.

I would thus be willing to wager all of the income I have ever made from writing fiction (nothing, but the sentiment is there) that sometimes, even as he wallows in his piles of money, Dan Brown wonders why he'll never be able to write exactly as well as he wishes he could; why while being one of the world's most financially successful writers, literary acclaim eludes him; why no one ever says, "actually, there's a sentence on page 344 when Langdon says something rather profound and eloquent". Sometimes, despite our best intentions, we just cannot help the way that we write, and sometimes, it is just a bit crap.

Might our communal antipathy towards Brown in fact be a displacement of the energy that fuels the oft-unspoken but pervasive anxiety that the even attainment of longed-for commercial success is no guarantee that we are actually any good at writing? And yet would we keep writing at all if we didn't still have a shred of hope, deep down, that it might be possible that we might be brilliant? We are all Dan Brown. Except for the staggering wealth."

Love this!

I could never bring myself to read The Da Vinci Code. When too many people tell me how great something is I just know it's going to be tripe.
And I still can't forgive Tom Hanks' hair. I just can't.

Yes, Kathy, Maureen D can be tough to take these days--I almost put in a caveat, but figured what the heck. She's in her old form here, employing the kind of snarkiness that deflated Ross Perot.

Berry, how interesting that Masonic lodges have been getting more calls! I take your point about the unintended impact of bad writing, but I still wonder--isn't there a *good* historical novel or thriller about the Masons out there? Does anyone know?

Michael, thanks for the Guardian post with the counterpoint. Sure, it's possible we writers feel communal anxiety about the quality of our own stuff, and maybe flinging stones does not become us--or does it? The Guardian writer admitted to flinging the Da Vinci Code against the wall.

And still: I want suggestions for other great thrillers!

A severed hand in my Rotunda?
A death shrine in my basement?

These would be awesome lyrics for a punk song. In a thriller, not so much.

This was hilarious. Thank you. Back to writing. :P

I appreciate your disdain of Brown, but his popularity is unmatched. He cleverly combined religious iconography with thriller adventure in a stupid, Hollywoodized manner that can only be reminiscent of Crichton. So, in order to not write like Brown, all you have to do is be a better author.

I bought both the Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. Encouraged by early raving about it, including the normally reliable woman at one local bookstore, I bought them together in a twofer deal on an online book club. As soon as I opened the box I started to worry; there on the back of each was a blurb by Clive Cussler. I have a Cussler rule (now expanded to a Dan Brown/Cussler rule). If there's a Cussler blurb, the book goes straight back on the shelf. These two pieces of dreck confirmed the wisdom of the rule.

Here's a good way not to write like Dan Brown; either visit the location, or talk to someone who has, rather than getting your entire knowledge of it from a Frommer's guide.

Couple more for the list; "Ordinary Heroes" by Scott Turow (or anything else by Scott Turow), and "Beach Music" by Pat Conroy.

People who are afraid books are dying say anything that gets people reading them is beneficial--even Dan Brown. (Antidote: Ruth Rendell.)

Is it better, then, for a "perfect" tree to fall in the forest with no one there to hear, or a flawed tree to fall at second base in Yankee Stadium in the middle of a Red Sox game?

To this day, the VR Worst Prose I've Ever Had The Misfortune To Wade Through championship continues to be held by Ayn Rand, darling of libertarians everywhere, whose stated goal may have been to laud Greatness, but whose oozing pen struggled (and failed) to achieve mere adequacy.

Seriously, Atlas Shrugged is godawful at the sentence and paragraph level. Sometimes even at the word level. It's that bad.

This post, however? A GREAT read.

I don't know if they qualify as thrillers, but I love Kate Atkinson's novels. Case Histories is full of murder and intrigue, and she writes like an angel.

Thanks for that Maureen Dowd review. That made my day.

Ayn Rand! Yikes! Definitely need a vaccine for her, with about a thousand booster shots. Again, horrible prose in the service of horrible ideas.

But the tree falling at Yankee Stadium on those Sox players? How long will the tree be remembered? And what will it mean? In my neck of the woods, what we remember about the Red Sox come October is the drama of how they always screw up--and the *agony* (in italics) when they fail. It may be trashy entertainment, but at least it's got human interest, not "symbology."

Maureen Dowd's snark is occasionally well-matched to her topic. This might have been one of those times.

Dan Brown is exactly like Rush- see a good ol' American chance to make millions of the huge population of credulous religulous imbeciles residing here in the homeland- then take it to the bank!

Brown's "work", like Rush's, simply makes a base appeal to the Jebus-Crazed un-foot-washed pedestrian hoi polloi of Red State's and the back hills of just about everywhere, USA.

A Brilliant move in capitalistic terms, and neither lost on our other drive-time DJ/"writer" Beck.

BTW, Maureen Dowd is DA BOMB!

Aloha Irish Lasses.

I once had a severed hand in my rotunda and it hurt like a bitch.

I agree 100% with 50% of your list; the other half gives me some new books to add to my reading list...I trust your judgment! Among my own particular favorites are Robert Littell's "Legends" and almost anything by Charles McCarry or Ian Rankin.

@berrycomposer - Why is the result of more people joining the Masons a good thing? It's a pretty horrid institution in many countries.

@M. McK - I actually hate Ian Rankin (though I love his books). I tend to dislike anyone who is younger than me and has become filthy rich by having the audacity to have a great idea, or talent, or both. Not only does Rankin fit the bill, he graduated a few years behind me from the same damn University, and is forever cropping up in the alumni crap they still send me. Seriously though, I think he would be a great guy to go drinking with (at the Ox of course, where else?). We could compare notes on "Fleshmarket Close", as not only is that location the title of one of his stories, I'm pretty sure I am the only person on OS who has been arrested in it.

I will leave others to critcize Dan Brown's writing and his success. What I know is that after the Da Vinci Code success he made a significant (more than I make in a decade) anonymous donation to the non-profit I used to work for. Not some big, high-profile nonprofit where he was looking for publicity or his name on a building. A small one that helps kids. And he didn't want anyone to know - until he was convinced several years later that it would help the organization raise more funds if they released his name. He may not be Hemingway or even Stephen King, but he isn't all bad.

This is my theory about Dan Brown's writing:

It is designed to make dumb people feel smart. The dumber they are, the smarter they will feel while reading one of his books.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I kind of wish I had that skill, because at least then I could make tons of money, which is not a crime, even when Dan Brown does it.

The crime I do believe he commits, however, apart from writing poorly, is the crime he repeatedly commits against his female characters and readers. I feel he insults the intelligence of female readers by giving us female characters who have brilliant careers and yet are constantly fawning over the (obviously superior) intelligence of Robert Langdon and any other male characters who might be around. Ick! I'm just waiting for one of them to totally one-up him or be like, "Yeah, I know Bob, you're not the only one who studies "symbology"."

Who said, "Never under-estimate the taste of the American public?" I think it was H.L. Mencken, who is a great writer with despicable politics.

In this vein, the really scary thing is, in non-fiction this week the #1 best seller is Glenn (I'm so crazy that not even an asylum would have me) Beck.

I think I read one page of Brown's Da Vinci and knew it was crap. I reacted the same way to the Celestine Prophecy. Hell, practically any book out there that EVERYBODY loves is guaranteed to piss me off.

I, too bought Angels and Demons and the DaVinci Code. Like an idiot. Angels and Demon was exceble (jumping out of an airplaine with a handkerchief as a mild example). But some of people told me the DaVinci code was GREAT. I read it. As a comparative religion major (I am not religous) it was filled with errors stated to be true, terrible writing, cardboard characters and just plain bad writing.
Awful. My antidote- Mo Hayder (and yes, Hells Bells, Ruth Rendell).

Actually, I'm with Michael Cartwright on this. It's so easy (so incredibly easy!) to mock Dan Brown. But ask yourself this: If what he does is so primitive and simple, why don't other, better writers churn out books like this by the dozen? They could make easy millions.

There may be more to Brown than meets the eye. Not a talent for great writing, clearly. Join the club! But some kind of talent, no less.

Anyway. If you do turn to Michael Crichton, you should throw away Jurassic Park (read the original by Conan Doyle, if you must have dinosaurs) and head straight for his best work: The Great Train Robbery. Lots of fun facts about Victorian London, and inspired (loosely) by real events.

True, Norwonk, it's very easy to criticize Dan Brown, one reason that I almost didn't bother with this post. And it does take talent to get people turning pages--I know this both as a writer and a writing instructor. Keeping eyes glued to a page, whether in print or online, is one of the basic skills for anyone seeking a mainstream audience.

But I do think that when ideas are presented as "clever" or "cutting-edge" or even "shocking"--and they are so evidently not--they deserve a take-down or at least a discussion like this one. Dowd's review not only made me laugh; she got me thinking one more time about why *The Da Vinci Code* inspired such animus in me.

Jealousy that Brown is raking in cash? Sure. Insecurity about my own writing? Always.

But then there's my problem with the way books like Brown's support corporate bookselling, sucking up all the marketing air. The success of such books keeps the system in a vicious cycle. They narrow the choices, they get booksellers in lockstep, and by buying them, we end up reinforcing stories that are actively sexist--oh yes, little box--and based on the kind of conspiracy thinking that leads us straight to the likes of Glenn Beck.

There have always been bread and circuses, lousy books, bad newspapers, crazy commentators. Maybe I'm just spitting in the wind. But where else does the quality control come from these days but readers?

(Mamoore, by criticizing Brown's writing I don't mean to criticize his character. I'm heartened to hear of his support for a small youth-serving agency.)

In a rare philosophical moment, I'll observe that without the Dan Browns we wouldn't know how good the Scott Turows are. Presumed Innocent was the best psychological page turner I've ever read.

Brown's books are Big Macs. Easy going down, but not good for you. That's the way it is. I just feel lucky to know the difference between a big Mac and a great piece of steak.

Martha,

“When Maureen Dowd is good, she's wickedly good.” Which is not always of course but...

...I totally agree with this. Her picture is featured next to word “acerbic” in some dictionaries I think. She’s capable of wielding the sort of rapier snark that leaves her victims bleeding from numerous wounds before finishing even one sentence.

Like Dave Cullen, I can’t comment on Dan Brown because I’ve not read him. If this article was regarding the funny papers I might be able to weigh in.

I have a hunch we’ll be having a similar conversation about Maureen Dowd, Sarah Palin, and Lynn Vincent, when “Going Rogue” comes out.

Thanks for this piece Martha. Rated.

Anyone who's been to Harvard probably knows that it's semiotics, not symbology.

When I used to commute to NYC I would read thrillers to make the time pass quickly. Angels and Demons and TDC basically fit that description. They have their place. Crichton, Dean Koontz, Steven King. They don't really pretend to be more than popular authors of escapist literature. So putting them down sounds more like sour grapes and envy. Who cares how may books they sell? Like any other genre, mystery, romance, as long as the reader gets what they want out of it, it serves its purpose. Every novel doesnt have to be Cousin Bette, every Movie, Goodfellas, every album, Astral Weeks.