Hating on Dan Brown

My mother has a habit of telling me what she is going to buy me for Christmas; or when asking me what I want she does so in such a way that makes it painfully obvious. ("What do you want for Christmas? "Ooh, what's that?" "Where can I find it?" "What was their address?") One day last fall I was sitting at this very computer when I had this conversation with her:

HER: Were you planning on reading that new book by that Dan Brown?
ME: Yeah, eventually.
HER: Well don't go and buy it. I'm going to get it for you for Christmas.
ME: Okay.

(About two weeks pass.)

HER: Here. (Places copy of The Lost Symbol on computer desk.) I decided I wanted to get you something else for Christmas.
ME: Okay. Thanks.

The book proceeded to sit on my desk until November when I finally decided to read it. The book suffers from the same formulaic plot that characterizes Dan Brown's other novels, so I need not describe it here.

However, I was amused by the following excerpt from the first chapter:

"I hate to embarrass you, Professor," the woman said, sounding sheepish, "but you are the Robert Langdon who writes books about symbols and religion, aren't you?"
Langdon hesitated and then nodded.
"I thought so!" she said, beaming. "My book group read your book about the sacred feminine and the church! What a delicious scandal that one caused! You do enjoy putting the fox in the henhouse!"

I can't decide if Mr. Brown is referencing the commotion created by The Da Vinci Code, giving a nod to his fans, stroking his own ego, or all three. If anything, it gives Robert Langdon the distinct flavour of Mary Sue.

But I don't want to talk about Dan Brown's books. I want to talk about Dan Brown.

It's not a well kept secret that many writers don't think fairly highly of Dan Brown's works. The same thing can be said about readers that care about their reading material. They don't think that someone with bad writing deserves to be as popular and successful as Dan Brown is. So do writers dislike Dan Brown because he's successful and they think his work is bad, or do they dislike Dan Brown because he's popular and they think his work is bad? I think it's both. (I know I've just conflated Dan Brown with his works, but give me a moment.)

But here's the point I want to make. Dan Brown is a popular author.

Popular. Author.

Dan Brown doesn't write for the sake of writing, he writes to make money. It's his job. To be successful he needs to know what his audience likes. His audience likes insipid action-mystery novels about controversial topics and secret societies. The masses are indeed asses.

I'd even wager that a lot of writers want to be Dan Brown. They want to do what they enjoy, entertain people, and make money doing it. They're just too full of themselves to admit it. It's easy to criticize the guy at the top when you're at the bottom.

Do I like Dan Brown's work? No. Do I think that he's rightly criticized for the quality of his writing? No. He's only doing his job.

Book Review: Eve: A Novel of the First Woman

Warning: May Contain Spoilers.

Eve: A Novel of the First Woman is just that. It is an expansion on the first few books of Genesis as narrated by Eve and her daughters. Eve's sons however, never act as narrators. I personally believe that this is an attempt on the author's part to maintain the overall feminine voice of the novel. Additionally, the story is told in a series of flashbacks, creating the impression that the reader is actively listening to the story rather than being a passive observer. (Later in the novel however, I did get the distinct feeling that Eve was narrating her view of the story to one of her daughters.)

The majority of the story takes place after Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and primarily the length of time leading up to Abel's murder by his brother Cain. At this point in time Eve and her family live alongside a society heavily based upon Akkadia and Babylon. This society provides most of the impetus for the conflict and plot development in the story. Eve's time in Eden is explored as well, mostly for some character development.

As for Eve herself, the author paints a sympathetic picture. Before the Fall, Eve is depicted as sensuous and beautiful. After the Fall she is no less so, but she becomes increasingly lonely and doubtful. Eve continues to have children as her relationship with Adam and her older children falter, for their unconditional affection. Eve wrestles with herself spiritually and is tempted by the neighbouring society's deities.

While the novel does grapple with some thorny theological questions, they appear to be either ignored or dealt with by liberal apologetics. I ultimately felt unsatisfied with this aspect. The author does write in the afterword that many of the questions dealt with in the story may be considered borderline blasphemous in the religious community, and I'm led to believe that the author herself is religious which may explain some of the reluctance.

The afterword that the author includes details her research and some of her choices in writing the story, and I'm grateful for it. There were many points in the book where I wondered why the author made the choices she did and it's very refreshing to have some answers. I do have one nitpick though: while the author acknowledges the two differing accounts of creation in Genesis, there is no inclusion of Lilith in either the narrative or the afterword. While I personally think the inclusion of this rabbinical myth would have been a good source of conflict in the story, it has probably already been done. Ultimately, the choice is the author's anyway.

Eve provides a good mix of history, myth, and legend along with a good exploration of humanity and feminity. Eve also has its rough spots, but I'm willing to let it slide for an author's first novel. Four out of five stars.

Book Review: Inferno

Warning: May Contain Spoilers.

(Note: I am using the Signature Press Editions version of The Divine Comedy by World Publications Group, copyright 2007.)

The version of Inferno found in the Signature Press Editions printing of The Divine Comedy uses the translation by Henry Francis Cary, which dates to 1805. Henry Francis Cary's translation differs quite a bit from the original form that Dante Alighieri employed. First and foremost, something is bound to be lost in the translation from Italian to English; and this is unavoidable. The biggest problem I have with this translation is that it abandoned the form that Dante Alighieri employed in favour of Iambic Pentameter, a form much more suited to the English language. This may not seem like much of an issue but the form that Dante employed, terza rima, was created by the author for the purpose of writing this epic.

The illustrations by Gustave Dore featured throughout the book are exquisitely detailed and can serve to aid visualizing the scenes or provide a brief refuge from the dense prose if you have difficulty.

One other critique of the book itself. It lacks footnotes and this makes it difficult for the lay-reader to appreciate the dearth of allusions and references in the book. There is only one footnote to be found in Inferno, and its purpose is to clarify the pronunciation of a word so that it fits the rhyme scheme. The language is antiquated and conversations are sometimes hard to follow. If you struggled with Shakespeare's works, you will surely struggle with Dante's.

Inferno is a classic work much referenced in our own times, as well as being an ambitious and creative work for its own time (the fourteenth century) and that should earn it points alone. However, I cannot imagine that the literary standards of the same time period were very high as compared to now, and this shows. Dante frequently writes of his fear, and exalts Heaven. On several occasions he states that he will not describe the horrors that he observes to the reader, presumably because he does not wish to recall them. I think this is an excuse for lazy writing. Further, Dante faints twice during his journey through Hell. Understandable, but the author doesn't make himself out to be a convincing hero, if he can be called that.

Inferno reads at times like propaganda. Dante places his political enemies, bishops, monks, and even a former Pope in Hell. However there is also a sympathetic side, or so it would appear. Dante places Saladin with the virtuous pagans, and the prophet Mohammad and Ali with the schismatics and sowers of discord, not blasphemers. (Although it should be noted that the blasphemers are punished in the seventh circle of Hell, the schismatics in the eighth.)

For all its apparent faults, I must still recommend Inferno and The Divine Comedy simply for its influence and historical value.

Three out of five stars.