Not sure about his past writing, but I feel like the problem they're describing (not having a community) is often enlarged if you don't have kids. I'm getting older, and even though I don't want kids as well, most people my age are structuring their lives around their kids/potential kids down the line, and I guess that provides the sense of community and giving "a reason to go out."
Once you're past a certain age, social life will not be automatic like it used to when you were younger. You need to agro pursue a social life and maintain relationships and friendships. On the flip side, some of my close friendships at this age are super strong since we've been allies for decades.
> The critics said his writing was clumsy, ungrammatical, repetitive and repetitive. They said it was full of unnecessary tautology. They said his prose was swamped in a sea of mixed metaphors. For some reason they found something funny in sentences such as “His eyes went white, like a shark about to attack.” They even say my books are packed with banal and superfluous description, thought the 5ft 9in man. He particularly hated it when they said his imagery was nonsensical. It made his insect eyes flash like a rocket.
> Renowned author Dan Brown got out of his luxurious four-poster bed in his expensive $10 million house and paced the bedroom, using the feet located at the ends of his two legs to propel him forwards. He knew he shouldn’t care what a few jealous critics thought. His new book Inferno was coming out on Tuesday, and the 480-page hardback published by Doubleday with a recommended US retail price of $29.95 was sure to be a hit. Wasn’t it?
I enjoy his books, I am currently reading one I read 10 years ago again in spanish, which I am currently learning as a language. I mean, this is fiction, the other authors are about politics and society. Why would I give a shit about how rich or what an asshole of a person an author is, to enjoy reading his fiction?
There was a brief period where ignorance reigned and Dan Brown was considered an actual historical writer. That drove a lot of book sales, when in fact Dan Brown doesn't write anything remotely historical.
I was reading Brown at like.... 12 years old. The idea that anyone legitimately thought of it as historical fact is hard for me to believe. Not impossible, though...
Did people also think of National Treasure as historically accurate?
The Da Vinci Code has a frontispiece page titled "FACTS" or similar, that lists various elements mentioned in the book and claims they're historically factual. That's the stuff lots of people believed (as did Dan Brown, one presumes).
Probably. Dan Brown got a lot more credence than Nick Cruise though. People will assume that a historical fiction is based on real history. Its like when Hollywood says "based on a true story."
I think the issue is that, for a moment, people legit thought of him as a good writer/his books having actual research etc. Then he got too popular and people started ripping his work apart because they got tired of hearing how good his books were etc. It's a pretty normal cycle for a pop author.
As for comparing him to Hitler, people gonna be people.
An alternative is that he isn’t on that list because he’s a bad person, like Hitler. He’s on a list of people GP doesn’t want to read. He doesn’t want to read Hitler because Hitler is a bad person, he doesn’t want to read Dan Brown because Dan Brown’s prose is clumsy and not worth reading, and he doesn’t want to read Ayn Rand for both reasons. (Sorry for the dig at the end. I think that’s funny).
