Philbin saves the world

Phoolbin once again makes another meaningless post, this time slamming dan Brown’s book Angels and Demons. And of course where Phoolbin is, asskisser Larry follows.

I’ve never read dan Brown’s work, never had an interest in it, but if these two don’t like him, it simply makes me want to read them. Once again, they prove their bitterness and pettiness; if either of them had a chance to get a deal like Brown’s, they’d sell their souls (if they had one that is) for the chance.

0 thoughts on “Philbin saves the world

  1. The shit gets better and better.

    Okay, girls, now Dan Brown may not be the best stylist in the world, but he apparently knows enough to propel a story along and maintain interest.

    You don’t have to like him to respect the fact that he got a big publishing contract and some big cash to go with it.

    Let’s face it, you’re jealous.
    As Rain said, you’d jump at the chance.

  2. The Da Vinci Code was on the NYT Bestseller list for what seemed like eons. We have a copy of it around here somewhere, but I’ve never wanted to read it. Critical acclaim was faint, but it sold like crazy, so he obviously has the ability to tell a compelling story. Can’t knock that.

  3. Was that was his post was about? I thought Larry was just mangling the segue.

    While Dan Brown may have done well, the DaVinci is not a well written book. I got to page 27 before chucking it across the room. To sum up:

    * 17 adverbs in a three page prologue. Yes, I counted.

    * Old Man has really big sekrit that will change teh world. Old Man is fatally shot in the stomach. Old Man needs to pass on the sekrit, so despite the pain, shock, and hydrostatic damage done by the single round of ammunition, he scrawls out an elaborate cipher/puzzle to the one man that can figure it out. And this a person Old Man has never met or corresponded with at all. The two of them barely know each other by academic reputation, but Old Man trusts him with teh sekrit.

    *Dan Brown failed to do research on fire arms, as made evident by dumb ass self flagellating assassin who makes a hit on the old man in the Loruve at night with a revolver loaded with a single round of ammunition. We know this because the weapon is not silenced when Moronicus shoots the Old Man. Then when he tries to finish him off, there’s the “click of an empty chamber.” (which implies the make of the weapon) So Moronicus, instead of reloading and firing six into Old Man, plays the villain “Ha! You’re Doomed Now!” card and walks away.

    So in a way, Dagstine’s kind of right in that “Da Vinci’s” not a good book. It probably would have made mediocre sales at best if not for the crisis in the Catholic Church at the time, followed by the Church’s condemnation of the novel.

    My father, who is an intelligent man and a voracious reader, said “Da Vinci” was a fun thriller, which means Brown connected with audience to come point. (It should be noted I don’t begrudge anyone who likes something I don’t — opinions vary after all) In the next breath he said, however, “If you’re read one Dan Brown novel, you’ve read them all,” saying that “Angels & Demons” was pretty much the same thing.

    But while many writers wail and gnash their teeth at the success of Brown, they’d give their right arm for that kind of success. What Mikakke and Dungstain don’t get is that controversy alone, and especially the author-induced variety, is not enough to get an audience. In fact controversy plus flat writing yields a flop. Brown, on the other hand, managed to compose a story that held readers (despite what you or I might call sloppy writing), the audience was hungry for what “Da Vinci” offered, and the external controversy by the Church. Were the novel released now or five years prior, the results might have fizzled due to lack of reader interest.

    So, even though a canny editor got the ball rolling, it was because he knew readers would be there to pick it up. Once again, we find that the so-called conspiracy in the publishing world is run by the very people Mikakke hates and calls sheep.

  4. Never fear, Kim is here! To answer all your historical novel needs!

    Sorry, just had to say – I’m one day away from finishing the writing of Dan Brown-eqsue historical novel (one reader compared it to Kostova’s The Historian, which sounds a little closer). I hope MikeB will be happier with the historical details in mine.

  5. This would be the Dante novel, yes.

    And as for firearms, none in 1302 – but I have them in my contemporary zombie novels. I find there are A LOT of people in the USA who know A LOT about guns. So the bad news is, you better satisfy them. The good news is, even if you’re a hand-wringing liberal like me, you probably know several people who own a bunch of guns and would be happy to discuss them with you.

  6. Prior to my dad passing in ’89, my parents had 7 handguns, 2 shotguns, and a rifle. Now my Mom has it down to my dad’s old service revolvers, and a .357. I’ve been to the fire range, and know how to shoot. Certainly doesn’t mean I should own a gun though 😛

    I’m looking forward to your new one Kim!

  7. DaVinci Code was meh, certainly not worth all the hype and hoopla.

    Angels and Demons, on the other hand, I quite liked. Still not great writing but enjoyable enough.

    Oh, and Doc? I couldn’t even finish The Historian … yours is much more fun! Quit selling yourself short or you’ll be in for another spanking!

  8. I flung Angels and Demons across the room after about a page. So many dashes and ellipses, it felt like reading Morse code. OTOH, I loved The Historian. But then again, I am one. Sort of.

    De gustibus non disputandem est.

  9. Mmmm, I’ve been baaaaad….

    Well, I’ve never read the Historian, but I like that someone would think mine had that kind of potential. As I’ve been writing it, I’ve been thinking along the lines of The Dante Club (which wasn’t about Dante, really, but famous 19th century Dante scholars turned crime fighting superheroes, which I thought was neat).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *