Name a "Mainstream BlockBuster" you actually like!

[Toadal]

That question, of whether it is worth reading rubbish books at all, is an interesting one. Shade was quite right in comparing the act of reading a Crichton or Grimsham to stuff like reading the back of a cereal packet, or possibly a poor quality newspaper.

What does it mean to 'read'? Are we talking about the mechanical act of passing words underneath your eyes? Active reading, that is when taking an interest and becoming involved with the text in question, can be enourmously useful in both the workplace as well as school or college and can bring serious benefits to someone's life. To too many people, especially young people, reading is a chore, something to be done, and so the mere mechanical act is performed.

I would suggest that blockbuster type novels promote this type of mindless reading, where engagement isn't really required and where the aim is to get to the end as quickly as possible. Such reading is no different to the cereal packet, or, frankly, going the toilet. It's just a way of wasting time.

Reading what might be termed literature, though, provides an intellectual and emotional challenge. Such books engage parts of the brain and personality that would normally not be exercised for days at a time. They help a person to grow.

 

[Stewart]

Hey, I said I liked The Silence of the Lambs. I don't just read certain books either.

I nip into shops and buy the latest by Stephen King, Anne Rice, James Herbert, etc.
I even bought The Da Vinci Code and The Rule of Four. I buy a lot of the 3 for 2 books in Waterstones such as The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime and Vernon God Little.

I buy classics; I buy classic dross. I buy modern classics; I buy modern dross.

I just know that The Da Vinci Code is not a good book in the context of literacy and I'll be damned if people are going to read one book in their life and tell me that Dan Brown is a great writer. Sure, he can write (everyone can write) but he can't write well in the context of being an author of novels.

If, indeed, he actually does write novels based on his unwillingness to swaer under oath that he wrote The Da Vinci Code.

 

[novella]

Further to what Toadal is saying here, there are degrees of engagement. When my son was 12 he got really into Robert Ludlum and John Le Carre. For his maturity level, these were engaging and stimulating because of plot complexity and just sheer length. But to read only at that level for his whole adulthood would be very limiting. Nevertheless, that's what a lot of 'readers' who constantly read blockbusters by big names wind up doing. It really is just light entertainment. Not sinful, not harmful, just not worth spending so much time on, IMO.

 

[novella]

I just know that The Da Vinci Code is not a good book in the context of literacy and I'll be damned if people are going to read one book in their life and tell me that Dan Brown is a great writer.

My brother read The Da Vinci Code expressly for its value in picking up girls. Apparently you can really count on it when all else fails. It's magic.

 

[Shade]

When my son was 12 he got really into Robert Ludlum and John Le Carre. For his maturity level, these were engaging and stimulating because of plot complexity and just sheer length. But to read only at that level for his whole adulthood would be very limiting.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, le Carré is one of the good guys! He's an elegant, intelligent writer.

 

[Toadal]

Exactly! This is why there is no snobbery involved here: there are good books and bad books, but they don't have to fall within specific lines as far as content goes. Le Carre is good, as is James Ellroy. They write their books with a little bit of intelligence, style, and depth. Subject matter shouldn't have to come into it.

And, on the subject of The Da Vinci Code, nowhere on this thread has anyone stated what the benefits of reading this book, and its ilk, are. Apart from the 'I liked it and my opinion is as worthy as anyone else's' argument, there hasn't been much of an attempt to justify blockbuster-by-numbers writing.

 

[Martin]

what the benefits of reading [The Da Vinci Code], and its ilk, are

Only the millions of people who started reading solely because of this one book.

But apparently, that ain't worth squat, because the book is shit.

Cheers

 

[Toadal]

Just where is the evidence for this claim? Were these people illiterate before they came across this sacred text? Had the thought of reading books never occured to them before? Nonsense. Maybe a couple of thousand readers got caught up in the hype and picked up a copy of TdVC as their first book in years, or something. But certainly not millions.

 

[Stewart]

The only other books that these people who started reading based on The Da Vinci Code are simply reading more Dan Brown. Go to the Dan Brown forums and read the sheer number of people saying I've read all of Dan Brown's books and can't wait for the next one before going on to say that they will read and reread Brown's books until the next one.

Tragic, really. And yes, it's shit.

 

[Martin]

Why on this Earth is that tragic!? I don't understand that.

First of all, you're talking about a Dan Brown discussion board. Go to a Jose Saramago discussion board, and you'll find the exact same thing, only with Saramago's books.

Secondly, these people are happy with what they're reading; they enjoy it, and perhaps feel better and happier because of it. Who are you to be calling it tragic, only because you happen to read something which is considered 'high brow' (whatever that means).

If anything's tragic, it's the attitude expressed in this thread.

Cheers

 

[novella]

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, le Carré is one of the good guys! He's an elegant, intelligent writer.

Yes, I agree. Another one of my favorites from the bestseller lists. His subtle characterizations and dialogue are brilliant. Lacon and Smiley:

"George? Natter? Garden?"

"Super."

(Lacon is soooo laconic. )

 

[Toadal]

Martin

You clearly aren't taking any notice of any of the posts made in this thread. Stewart was making those specific points in contrast to yours. Why is it tragic that these people are just reading Dan Brown? Because your argument was that by reading his books, people would open themselves up to the joys of reading other books.

What could possibly be described as tragic in what has been expressed here? The desire for better books to be read more widely? The attempts to promote the reading of books that would bring greater pleasure to those that read them? Oooh, we're such bastards, aren't we?

 

[Martin]

Bastards, perhaps not - snobs, I'm sorry, but yes.

And I do find it tragic that there are people who look down on other people because of what they read. But you're not doing that, of course. No, never!

Cheers

 

[Toadal]

No one, Martin, is looking down on anyone else. Why would we? But a question is asked and it's reasonable to answer it as truthfully as possible. Am I really insulting people who like a certain book if I say that it isn't of the highest literary merit? I would suggest that most people who have read it, and indeed others like it as this discussion shouldn't be about just one book, and liked it, would accept that it is hardly of Booker-standard.

On a quite different tack, didn't you used to be a moderator on here?

 

[Martin]

Yes, and?

Cheers

 

[Shade]

Robert Ludlum, on the other hand, is the lowest of the low. Like Tom Clancy and Virginia Andrews, his books aren't even written by him anymore. Though at least, unlike Clancy, he has the excuse of being dead.

So, in summary: the main disagreement on this thread seems to be between those who think there are objective standards of good and bad books, and those who think that there aren't or that it doesn't matter as long as people enjoy them.

Well, you know what? Even if The Da Vinci Code mysteriously managed to cure world poverty, reverse environmental pollution and apply a fresh lick of paint to all public buildings, it still wouldn't be a good book. Getting people to read better things - not just more Dan Brown or more shitlit - would mean it had served some worthwhile purpose, but as Toadal and Stewart have said, there's little evidence that Brown-nosers are now devouring Ulysses. And it still wouldn't be a good book.

 

[Shade]

And yes, Martin, you are misinterpreting the impetus of the comments here. I am not criticising anyone who reads shit books. I am criticising the books they read.

Pass the snob badge and I'll stick it here next to my elitist one, if by snob you mean someone who believes that some books are better than others.

 

[Motokid]

The part that's hardest for me to swallow is the thought that the general public is better off not reading at all, than reading something like The Da Vinci Code.

 

[Motokid]

"To too many people, especially young people, reading is a chore, something to be done, and so the mere mechanical act is performed."

Which is precisely why a book like The Da Vinci Code could be extremely important in the grand scheme of things. By providing a light, entertaining, and possibly fun read without requiring a large amount of effort to get through, the book could open a whole new world to somebody who previously thought of reading as a chore.

I'm not saying Dan Brown is a genius. I did not pay money to read his book. I doubt I'll see the movie unless I rent it about a year from now.

I just think it's really in bad taste to make a statement that reading any book is a waste of time, or to compare it to using the toilet. Man, that's just overboard harsh as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Stewart]

a book like The Da Vinci Code could be extremely important in the grand scheme of things. By providing a light, entertaining, and possibly fun read without requiring a large amount of effort to get through, the book could open a whole new world to somebody who previously thought of reading as a chore.

We've all acknowledged it's a stepping stone. We're talking about those who stay on the same stone.