Books and Intelligence

[Tom]

Someone may recommend the aforementioned ‘Narnia Chronicles’ and say they “love” them. But if I were to accept that statement as-is and decided to go out and buy book 1, my distaste for overbearing religious iconography and fiction characters based on quasi-fictional characters (i.e. the lion/jezuz) would have me driving nails into the book.
I wouldn’t “love” it.

jay, could you please tell me why you dislike religous references (or perhaps just characters based on spiritual figures)? Not that I wish to argue with you or anything, just that a friend and I were discussing this the other day.

On the topic, I think that Harry Potter is better than a lot of mainstream adult fiction (keeping in mind that fine literature is not for everyone), much of which just exploits trendy themes. Ie - The DaVinci Code with feminism, many John Grisham novels with 'guns are bad' or 'ban the death penalty', and millions of books telling people why they shouldn't be bullies. Then again, perhaps these themes are trendy because the topics are currently relevent. Futhermore, I'm not an adult so I don't have much right to comment on it. But then again...
Sorry, I often argue with myself...

 

[jay]

Guess it's that optimism again, but I finish most things, if not all.

I understand. I was once like that. And then it just got to the point where I realized there is just *far* too much _other_ stuff to read (or even re-read) rather than wasting time on a struggle. To me a ‘review’ of “it sucked; twas an ordeal to get through and I regret doing do” and “it’s unfinishable” is the same thing but one saves some time and maybe agony. Plus it keeps the fire going.

I wasn't querying your guess at the time it takes, just saying that I wasn't really wasting that much time on it.

I know but I was just going with my thought, riding the wave…

but if the amorphous mass we call The People choose to skim-read and forget a book, they're welcome to it. (Having said that, we are talking seriously simple books here, so maybe your assessment is not that harsh. If you love it that much, why can you not remember plot details?)

Yes. And no matter what one’s “intelligence” if they can’t remember a book they read fairly recently, it’s best to not really admit it let alone be proud of it. Methinks.

I had (and still have) a seriously high tolerance level for magic and orcs and the like, and for anyone that grew up on Tolkien and Narnia, HP makes you feel less jaded and ancient

Sure. My never having a liking for them probably has a big impact on not wanting to read it now while I can grow hairs on my chin. To many they say use it as an excuse, a ‘break from life’ (which is always curious because the people that spout this kind of stuff seem to maintain a ‘life is a beach’ attitude anyway), others think its triggers their imagination. Although I’m slightly lost on how. There are plenty of books out there that spark imagination but don’t hold the readers’ hand and say, ‘ok, this chap has pointed ears, so he’s an elf’; this little girl has webbed feet, so she’s a whateverian’. And stuff.

you probably feel exactly as I do when I see the dreaded Da Vinci Code on buses - but surely you can see the attraction?

I only see an attraction for those wanting to be part of a trend. Which to me is not in the least bit attractive.
But I know what you mean, Hell, I’m a big da Vinci geek, I don’t know how but somehow I heard about the book once it came out and I managed to get a hardcover (signed even, which is kind gross) for, I think, $20. I still have it and hope to sell it and put the money towards a nice chalet *and* help you pay for University. I don’t know what I’ll fetch for it but I think I see “early retirement” in my future.
Jesting aside, it just gets out of hand when such a book shape life, like the Louvre and other museums having to post signs referring to the book like, ‘er, um, stoopid Americans: that was a work of FICTION’. And even then people stealing the sign (at least a few times) because they are convinced the sign is a cover-up.
When I bop up to London, time permitting, I generally run into the National Gallery and pay my respects (so to speak) to a few masterworks I am fond of, and the last 2 times there has been a crowd around da Vinci’s “The Virgin of the Rocks” (there *never* used to be a crowd there) with people staring as if…I have no idea what they are called, those computer generated images that if one looks hard enough/right enough a “sailboat” [Kevin Smith reference] or whatever is revealed.
They weren’t appreciating it because it a bloody masterpiece but simply some piece of pop.

Don't lose your faith in humanity just because people make unintelligent choices over books.

Oh don’t worry, this isn’t the first brick on the tomb - I lost faith a looooong time ago.

The world can be depressing and crap, but some people are de-stressing and brightening up because of a children's book; how is that a bad thing?

The way it is and will affect bookstores, book publishing, writers and writing. *That’s* dispiriting.

Alright, I'm off the soap-box now. Perhaps those 11 people picked HP because if you draw dragons wrongly, who's going to know...?

I think they picked it up because they’d have to struggle for at least five minutes if they were told to think of a book OTHER than HP.
Plus there was/is already established imagery for HP so they don’t have to be even vaguely creative. And not one of them even re-vamped Hairy’s look.
Which totally defeats the whole point of such a course.

(I note that Atomised has the same size font as HP - you know, a Big People book! All meant in good humour, and all that.)

But you’re comparing a paperback to a HC, no?
Semantics aside, is JK Rolling (sic) actually writing 600-something pages in hardcover with a typical font?
And people bitch about having to read 100 pages (paperback) of Steinbeck…

jay, could you please tell me why you dislike religous references (or perhaps just characters based on spiritual figures)?

I don’t believe I said I did. Hell, I used a religious reference yesterday in this very thread.

Hesse’s _Siddhartha_ is an ok read, Saramago’s _The Gospel According to Jesus Christ_ is *far* more interesting than JC’s lil’ ever-contradicting tales in the New Testament, and Kazantzakis’ _The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ_ is also a pretty fine read.

I have no problem with interpretations of texts from the bible, and the informed are fully aware a great percentage of what is in there is simply a riff (or outright rip-off) of older, texts (my apologies to those that thought, say, the ‘flood story’ was actually anything original in Gawd World).
For the Church (or whomever) to get all riled up at a Dan Brown is just outlandish. Fiction breeds fiction, bloody hell is the church doesn’t know that.
(I do however gleefully await their campaign to, er um, crucify Ann Rice for her newest OBVIOUS jumpin’ on a trend Jezuz tale. It may damn well outsell most of the books I listed above and it’s probably written about as skillfully as Deuteronomy…)

Annnnnyway. Got no problem with it. Except when it leans toward an agenda and propaganda. Lewis’ Lion/Christ crap was a bit rich and, personally, made me not finish the book. And I was like 10 years old or something…

On the topic, I think that Harry Potter is better than a lot of mainstream adult fiction

I don’t argue with that (although I don’t necessarily agree as I haven’t read HP or Grish-ham and haven’t touched King in decades (and just when the hell is he going to retire?)).

(keeping in mind that fine literature is not for everyone), much of which just exploits trendy themes. Ie - The DaVinci Code with feminism

Feminism is a “trendy theme”? Hmmm.
And giving Mary M some much needed and deserved ‘camera time’ is equitable to “feminism”?

Sorry, I often argue with myself...

When I was your age I was told I’d “go blind”, so be careful.

[stops to clean very thick lensed glasses]
ok, ciao,
j
(yes, I know “unfinishable” and “lensed” aren’t (official) words)

 

[jay]

“We are back in a new dark age of the imagination.”

Damn, I wish I wrote that line.

Jennifier, you’ll see you’re not the only one still tossing darts in The Code, Jacobson assaults it thrice in this article…(it’s fun!)

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1523533,00.html

 

[Jennifer]

Oh, that was brilliant. I've never seen the Da Vinci Code discussed on the same terms as pornography before...!

So, to be faintly relevant - do you think literature takes itself too seriously/is too politicised? Are we, the reading public, pretending to be too clever? Do we need to start reading more books that see things in an "irresponsible plastic way" - as opposed, the implication being, to Mr Brown's "Here are all the answers of the universe, which are of DEADLY IMPORTANCE!"?

I think Jane Austen's novels were the better for not being politically or morally aware, and maybe that's why she appeals to more readers than Eliot does. I think the Da Vinci Code would have been less viscerally offensive if it took itself less seriously - if it hadn't presented the faintly ridiculous as solid fact. So on the whole I probably agree with the article - although there's absolutely nothing wrong with a serious book. Jacobson is dead right, I think, in mentioning Dickens, who could write a serious, moral book, in which the characters were nevertheless "plastic" - utterly real and often faintly ludicrous.

On the Narnia topic - "The Horse and His Boy" was the first 'real' book I ever read, so this is faintly partial, but I for one was too young to notice the religious undertones (or rather, blatant overtones, I can see now), and simply read the books as a good tale. As an (almost) adult I dislike the overbearing bigotry (anyone who wasn't white was evil and probably kept slaves) and the notion that growing up was evil (lipstick, heaven forbid!). Phillip Pullman did an interview quite recently where he got quite annoyed with the whole thing, mentioning the fact that the ultimate reward for the children is to die before having to be an adult - something I accepted quite easily at pre-school age. So in a way, the books are sneaky propaganda. But given that I took to Christianity like a rugby player to ballet, I don't think they were that effective.

I think religious iconography can be effective in a novel, and I have no problems with it when it's there (I love the Name of the Rose, for example) but it can be pushed in your face to too great an extent, I think.

(As a side note, since when has feminism been trendy? Most women go out of their way to say "but I'm not a feminist..." when in the company of men, like it's a dirty word. Thanks to these fools, we've now been set back about thirty years - it's not cool to fight for your rights any more, especially if you're female. Excuse me, I have some ironing to do...)

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I think religious iconography can be effective in a novel, and I have no problems with it when it's there (I love the Name of the Rose, for example) but it can be pushed in your face to too great an extent, I think.

I agree with this. I read books when I was younger which had /huge/ helpings of religious iconography woven into the mix, such as the Narnia books and a various number of books which my grandmother pushed me to read (needless to say they were usually purchased at the Christian bookshop in town..), and yet I stayed well away from religion when I was younger. I did enjoy the books, but I just managed to put aside the immediate message - that Christianity can conquer all - and just enjoy the book for the good read it was (well usually was).

My father still tries to get me to read religious babble, such as The Case for Christ in a vain attempt to get me to revert..

Thanks to these fools, we've now been set back about thirty years - it's not cool to fight for your rights any more, especially if you're female. Excuse me, I have some ironing to do...)

I actually don't really think that there is anything left to fight for. I believe that the feminists have gone to far so as to make it slightly sexist against males. For instance, I think that it is absurd that employers must have a certain number of females in their workforce. People need to face up to the facts and realise that each of the sexes have their own strengths and weaknesses.. we are /not/ always equal in certain aspects and we never will be. Boys, on the whole, are stronger than females. So therefore in a company which involves exploiting this strength,it seems ridiculous to turn away males who are actually better applicants just because another is a female. (Don't get me wrong, I understand that not all boys are stronger, I'm just speaking in generalised terms).

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[StillILearn]

I actually don't really think that there is anything left to fight for. I believe that the feminists have gone to far so as to make it slightly sexist against males. ~MonkeyCatcher~

Next thing you know they'll be wanting to be equally represented in governmental positions and places like that.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Next thing you know they'll be wanting to be equally represented in governmental positions and places like that.

I believe we have that, well in NZ anyway. Our Prime Minister, Governer-General and other major political roles are filled by women.

 

[StillILearn]

I'm happy to hear that; the way things are going retrograde here in the good ol' U.S. we may soon be needing ask our husbands' permission to change churches.

 

[hay82]

I'm happy to hear that; the way things are going retrograde here in the good ol' U.S. we may soon be needing ask our husband's permission to change churches.

That would require that they have give you permission to speak in the first place and that they are able to hear you yelling from the kitchen.

Of topic you say, me? Never.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I'm happy to hear that; the way things are going retrograde here in the good ol' U.S. we may soon be needing ask our husband's permission to change churches.

NZ is very strongly PC.. which is good at times, such as females in high postions etc, but also bad at others. I hate having to always watch what I say because otherwise the PC-police will come and bite my head off! (I usually say what I want to anyway )

 

[mehastings]

I believe we have that, well in NZ anyway. Our Prime Minister, Governer-General and other major political roles are filled by women.

That may be so, but women are currently earning $.83 on the dollar in New Zealand. In the US and the UK it's closer to $.75.

It should also be noted that I, a woman, work in an industry where strength plays a significant role. Although I may not be able to lift as much, I'm certainly better at wriggling my ass into tight spaces. Unless the sole purpose of the job is to lift as much as possible at all times, I really think your attitude on that matter is antiquated.

 

[jay]

Oh, that was brilliant. I've never seen the Da Vinci Code discussed on the same terms as pornography before...!

Clevenger’s little piece, which I mentioned previously, compares Brown’s typing ability to that of pulp “romances” (which is I think is supposed to mean pornography but little old ladies wouldn’t like that).
I can dig it up for you if you’d like.

So, to be faintly relevant - do you think literature takes itself too seriously/is too politicised?

Hmm. Well, I’m not sure anyone is writing “literature” anymore. (Maybe Jose Saramago and poet Anne Carson)
Time will tell what will get labeled this abstract noun.

Are we, the reading public, pretending to be too clever?

Not at all, if anything that’s the assumption the non- and occasional-readers make. Look at this very thread: never once have I made any “I’m bloody smart and intelligent” comment, but I get hammered from the defensive people when *clearly* I’m not reading Plato and Rilke 24/7.
I just see it as what will undoubtedly be a sociological fact: the baseline for intelligence is slipping into dangerous levels, and this affects e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.

Do we need to start reading more books that see things in an "irresponsible plastic way"

I think we need a fair share of diversity on the page and the know-ability to decipher what is what.

I think Jane Austen's novels were the better for not being politically or morally aware, and maybe that's why she appeals to more readers than Eliot does.

I agree. Totally. I can very much live my life with never reading about, say, “911” again.

I think the Da Vinci Code would have been less viscerally offensive if it took itself less seriously - if it hadn't presented the faintly ridiculous as solid fact.

I really haven’t followed the madness that has been this phenomenon, but I *do* believe, although he does seem an outright asshead, that Brown has stated quite often that it’s a work of *fiction*. It’s just the masses that Want to Believe. He’s messed around with religious stuff before, I believe _Angels and Demons_ has the Vatican playing a part in the mystery (and few can now claim ‘going to the well’ twice is less fruitful, but I’d think he’ll drop the theme for us Code follow-up)…
Of course the church’s *entirely* counter-productive movements to try to slight a work of fiction based on, face it, other accounts of fiction is not only fantastically laughable but also very promotional.

Jacobson is dead right, I think, in mentioning Dickens, who could write a serious, moral book, in which the characters were nevertheless "plastic" - utterly real and often faintly ludicrous.

Exactly. And lest us not forget, Dickens was a ‘pop’ writer.
He was the [shudder] Stephen King of his time.

But given that I took to Christianity like a rugby player to ballet, I don't think they were that effective.

heh.

I did enjoy the books, but I just managed to put aside the immediate message - that Christianity can conquer all - and just enjoy the book for the good read it was (well usually was).

I agree. I may not fancy some of the “morals” in an Aesop Fable but its still may be a nice lil’ story. I *do* (and I guess always did) have a Bugs Bunny-esque line in the sand of where things can cross, though. Maybe low-bullshit tolerance is a better way of stating it.

My father still tries to get me to read religious babble, such as The Case for Christ in a vain attempt to get me to revert..

It’s worth a flip through if it can keep him to shush up (there has never been a time while arguing with Those That Believe in Myths that knowing more about their own foundation for belief than they do hasn’t proved a quicker and more satisfying (well, for one side) “debate”). Stobel _could_ have written a more impressive book, and interviewed more people, but it seemed more like an assignment wholly missing many points.
And, any investigative reporter knows that it’s just plain silly to try to “prove” if, say, “Was Jesus insane?” when the ‘argument’ to “prove” if there every was even a “Jesus” in the first place has gone unfounded and unfulfilled.
A bit like pondering if the Loch Ness monster had/had blue eyes or green…

For instance, I think that it is absurd that employers must have a certain number of females in their workforce.

While I agree, this is just the way things are. If MicroCorp _has_ to have xx blacks and xx “latinos” on staff, I’m certainly all for xx women.
It’s a warped system in theory, let alone in practice and finely exampled as the absurdity of the way the world works these days.

j

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

That may be so, but women are currently earning $.83 on the dollar in New Zealand. In the US and the UK it's closer to $.75.

What is this figure showing? I'm sorry.. I don't quite understand

It should also be noted that I, a woman, work in an industry where strength plays a significant role. Although I may not be able to lift as much, I'm certainly better at wriggling my ass into tight spaces. Unless the sole purpose of the job is to lift as much as possible at all times, I really think your attitude on that matter is antiquated.

I was only using this as an example. Of course not /all/ males would be better than /all/ females at this job, as I think that I stated when I said I was speaking in generalised terms. I was just trying to make the point that it is ridiculous that a female gets a job over a more qualified or better suited male applicant just because of the fact that she is a female. They should look at qualifications and/or suitability for a job rather than gender, as I think that this makes things a lot fairer. Yeah I know, "Life isn't fair", but it's things like this statement which keep it that way

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Jennifer]

I was just trying to make the point that it is ridiculous that a female gets a job over a more qualified or better suited male applicant just because of the fact that she is a female. They should look at qualifications and/or suitability for a job rather than gender, as I think that this makes things a lot fairer.

While I agree that qualifications are far more important than gender, I think that gender equality in work is a myth. Or in my experience anyway. Up until last year, where I work, the male workers were paid nearly twice as much as the female, for doing exactly the same job - a job at which women were, as a rule, better.
Anyway, positive discrimination fails. While women may get some jobs on the basis of gender, they will still be ridiculed. Female politicians are vilified, female police officers are harrassed. It's still fine for a man to sleep around, where a woman would be a slag. And so on.
Bring back bra burning! I'm sick of being treated as inferior on the basis of a few chemicals washing over me in the womb.

 

[StillILearn]

Uppity women

Jennifer, the more I read you, the more I like you. You're giving me hope for the future.

 

[Jennifer]

I can dig it up for you if you’d like.

If it's not too much hassle, you're probably busy...

Hmm. Well, I’m not sure anyone is writing “literature” anymore. (Maybe Jose Saramago and poet Anne Carson)
Time will tell what will get labeled this abstract noun.

Possibly. Literary fiction seems to be a different thing from literature these days. Maybe I should have said "fiction" instead.

Not at all, if anything that’s the assumption the non- and occasional-readers make. Look at this very thread: never once have I made any “I’m bloody smart and intelligent” comment, but I get hammered from the defensive people when *clearly* I’m not reading Plato and Rilke 24/7.
I just see it as what will undoubtedly be a sociological fact: the baseline for intelligence is slipping into dangerous levels, and this affects e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.

Standards are dropping everywhere, it seems, and you're right - this is deeply worrying (although kids don't seem to be allowed to fail any more...). There was some kind of study recently saying that a disturbingly high proportion of children in the UK leave primary school not able to read or write to even the most basic standard. But I think as our actual intelligence slips overall, the wish of the average person to be seen as intelligent grows stronger. Hence Da Vinci Code, "I'm reading about art and religion and codes and, you know, clever stuff!"

I agree. Totally. I can very much live my life with never reading about, say, “911” again.

Absolutely. If I see a book that claims to protray "real events" I tend to back away slowly. This is fiction, not political comment. (It's 11/9, anyway. Just to be pedantic and English). If I want to know about current affairs I will read a newspaper.

I really haven’t followed the madness that has been this phenomenon, but I *do* believe, although he does seem an outright asshead, that Brown has stated quite often that it’s a work of *fiction*. It’s just the masses that Want to Believe. He’s messed around with religious stuff before, I believe _Angels and Demons_ has the Vatican playing a part in the mystery (and few can now claim ‘going to the well’ twice is less fruitful, but I’d think he’ll drop the theme for us Code follow-up)…
Of course the church’s *entirely* counter-productive movements to try to slight a work of fiction based on, face it, other accounts of fiction is not only fantastically laughable but also very promotional.

Oh, I'm not saying he pretended it was all real, just that the whole thing felt weighty and laden with meaning when it clearly wasn't. I have, to my shame, also read Angels and Demons, which follows the same plot structure and has the church as the bad guy once again.
I do think it's brilliant, however, that the church felt the need to react so violently to the books. Like it was the biggest threat since Science. Which leads everyone to believe that there must be something in it after all, whereas if they'd left well alone, the books might have been taken less seriously. Just as with Harry Potter. If a church or school bans a book, how much will its popularity then rise with kids?! Are they completely out of touch? Condemning something is the best way to get normal children to read it. We should ban Dickens and Austen, and watch kids rush to find illicit copies...

Exactly. And lest us not forget, Dickens was a ‘pop’ writer.
He was the [shudder] Stephen King of his time.

Perhaps they had higher standards then. Or the general standard of literature meant that the "popular" audience was the rich and well-educated, not the "masses". While rich doesn't equal clever, you certainly had a better chance of a good taste in books if you'd been born rich then. Lest we forget, the novel itself was derided by the elitists of the day. See Northanger Abbey for the defence.

 

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, the more I read you, the more I like you. You're giving me hope for the future.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week... Glad to provide a service, at the small cost of your extortionate (probably) internet connection.
I note you called your post "Uppity Women", which amused me.

 

[jay]

Up until last year, where I work, the male workers were paid nearly twice as much as the female, for doing exactly the same job

Any company (business, practice, etc) with such a rule should be shut down and/or its “management” should be arrested on criminal charges.

Female politicians are vilified

True. And I’m still waiting for the day for a female politician to be proud she’s a female and not try to act like one of the boys. Cuntaleeza (sic) Rice, Hillary Clinton, etc. I’d say Thatcher but I’m not even sure she was human…

I'm sick of being treated as inferior on the basis of a few chemicals washing over me in the womb.

You make it sound so…sexy!

Jennifer, the more I read you, the more I like you. You're giving me hope for the future.

I’ve started a Jennifer ‘fan club’. I’ll sign you up,
j

 

[jay]

If it's not too much hassle, you're probably busy...

Now what kind of fool would I be to *not* try to make your wishes my command? ??

I’d rather provide a link but can’t find one; I still have it in Word though.
So, my apologies to Craig Clevenger for potentially breaking copyright and therefore will make a comment that people should check out _The Contortionist’s Handbook_ (tis a novel) as a interesting and pretty damn well written book. Those that think Palahniuk is a ‘great writer’, this leapfrogs Chuck. Easily. j
http://www.craigclevenger.com/


“Da Vinci Roulette

Below is one of the early book reviews I wrote for the Santa Barbara Independent. I've had a few people ask me about it and, as it's not on the Independent's web site, I've reposted it below for the curious, and likely to my own detriment. Originally titled Da Vinci Roulette, it appeared in print on April 22, 2004.


I've been cornered one time too many by someone earnestly trying to convince me that Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a great novel, when it's not. It's a fun read, I suppose; a reasonably interesting premise for a thriller with plenty of interesting factoids (though most of them seemed forcibly shoe-horned into the book) and an overall solid structure. It's the stuff that Hollywood blockbusters are made from, and Code will likely join their ranks in a few short years.

But it's not a great novel for one reason, and one reason only: Dan Brown can't write. There, I said it, the emperor has no clothes, there is no Santa Claus and Cousin Marty isn't resting, he's in a mental asylum. Living in a large, glass house, I'm loathe to trash another writer and I told my editors as much, but I've had too many quiet nights with a pint ruined by some moron derailing my silence with, So, have you read The Da Vinci Code? It's awesome…

Yes, I've tried… I'm about three quarters of the way through it. It's slow going, what with the blood leaking from my eyeballs every few pages, or having re-read a paragraph or a line of dialogue two or three times to ask myself, did he actually write that? People think this is good? Below are five passages I've quoted, minus the character names; two from the Code and three are not. See if you can tell which were written Dan Brown, and which weren't (answers below):

1) They walked past the huge multicolored and vaguely anthropomorphic metal sculpture that stood guard outside the station area. The sculpture always reminded [her] of how she felt after a heavy weekend: split into pieces, one eye by her toes, the other perched on her ear.

2) She was moving down the corridor toward them with a long, fluid strides… a haunting certainty to her gait. Dressed casually in a knee-length, cream-colored Irish sweater over black leggings, she was attractive and looked to be about thirty. Her thick burgundy hair fell unstyled to her shoulders, framing the warmth of her face. Unlike the waifish, cookie-cutter blondes that adorned Harvard dorm walls, this woman was healthy with an unembellished beauty and genuineness that radiated a striking personal confidence.

3) He relished the unaccustomed silence of the country and the privacy which the garden afforded. It was large, partly walled, and the remainder enclosed by a tangled hedge bordering fields that undulated from down to the village somewhere below. Wild and overgrown though it was, the garden had transmuted neglect into beauty: clematis and honeysuckle toppling over the crumbling brick walls and a confusion of rampant ivy threatening to smother the orchard.

4) Two minutes later she was creeping out of the open front door and heading for the path toward the stables. To the left of the gazebo, a heavy iron gate guarded the entrance to the grotto. She'd never been there- it had always been too overgrown- but she'd heard the gardeners clipping it back on her first morning… A quick examination confirmed that the padlock was missing. [She] brushed the orange flakes of rust from her fingers and gave the gate a shove. It swung open with an eerie creak.

5) Perfect. Now all that remained was to close and lock the door. Leaving the box on the ground for a moment, he grabbed the metal door and began to heave it closed. As the door swung past him, [he] reached up to grab the single bolt that needed to be slid into place. The door closed with a thud, and [he] quickly grabbed the bolt, pulling it to the left. The bolt slid a few inches and crunched to an unexpected halt, not lining up with its sleeve.


Paragraphs two and five, above, were both taken from The Da Vinci Code. The first, third and fourth paragraphs are taken from the following: Cheap Trick, by Astrid Fox (Black Lace, 2001); The Reckoning, by Anonymous (Blue Moon, 1998); A Gentleman's Wager, by Madelynne Ellis (Black Lace 2003). As you might have gathered, those last three are soft-core porn paperbacks; Astrid Fox' and Madelynne Ellis are most likely pseudonymns for writers who realized that Anonymous was already taken (is it me, or does Astrid Fox sound like some female superhero's alter ego?).

I'm not trying to be cruel, but prove a point. My first measure of a writer is how he or she handles language, and the level of writing in Code is clearly no better than pulp novel pornography. To be fair, there's likely some undiscovered and formidable talent wasting away in some of those little black paperbacks. But as near as I can tell, Code isn't much better than the bulk of those… having skimmed a number of them to find appropriate passages, I noticed that the writing in some of them was noticeably better than Brown's, though the dialogue was terrible in all of them; Brown also shares with his pornographic brethren a penchant for detailed descriptions of churches, museums and gardens, along with many parochial authority figures. The only things keeping Dan Brown from being just another Astrid Fox are a lot of dumbed down history lessons and a lack of spanking.”

 

[Jennifer]

Any company (business, practice, etc) with such a rule should be shut down and/or its “management” should be arrested on criminal charges.

This den of iniquity is otherwise known as the only fat camp for kids in europe - run by none other than my very own, vey sexist, school. Grrr, arrgh.

And I’m still waiting for the day for a female politician to be proud she’s a female and not try to act like one of the boys. Cuntaleeza (sic) Rice, Hillary Clinton, etc. I’d say Thatcher but I’m not even sure she was human…

True. Even the things that were aimed to help have worsened the image of the female politician - "Blair's Babes" springs to mind. And Thatcher... well, human possibly. Female? You'd never have guessed. "Where there is despair, only hope... or more despair if we feel like it."

Edit: Thanks for that jay, that made my day! Did anyone else think that there was a decided lack of spanking in the Da Vinci Code? Oh Mr Brown, what a trick you missed!
This does make me want to take a gleeful highlighter to my mother's copy, while saying things like "you, sir, are an imbecile! Where is all the spanking?"

Second disgusted edit: Cream-colored Irish sweater indeed. Pah.