A Momentary Lapse of Reason

(June 7, 2006)

One of my greatest pleasures this past month (besides being engaged, of course) came from finally having time to read. When in school, my schedule is soon filled with too many activities that I can't find the time to read as I'd like. I've read quite a few doozies over the past month.

Including Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code.

I confess that the Dan Brown method is entertaining. You feel antsy at times, wondering what will happen, and DaVinci Code is one of the bestselling books ever (although Angels & Demons is a superior plot).

Yet truth must prevail. Dan Brown is not a good writer, and both books fall horribly flat. In no way are they of the material from which classics are made. And while I'm no English Lit major, I feel nearly any of them would agree with me.

For all of you who include this as a favorite novel of yours, I seriously question (a) how much you've ever read, (b) if you ever ask deep questions on your own, and (c) if you would still think it cool to make it a favorite of yours if it weren't so "fashionable" to do so.

I've thought a lot about this. Just a few days ago, as I was finishing DaVinci Code, I stumbled across a comment by the author Salman Rushdie saying, "It's a book so bad, it makes bad books look good." Considering his colorful array of novels (Satanic Verses, anyone?), I know he's not talking about the theme. On the contrary, the theme of the novel is a very good point on which to meditate; when you really want to understand your views or beliefs, you must consider all possible options, not just those with which you feel comfortable. Only after sufficient pondering should you then reject it, or take whatever truth may be there and dispel the rest.

Themes aside, I felt like I was reading one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" novels. You know, the ones from 6th and 7th grade where you choose how you want the book to go? Dan Brown writes each chapter with a final sentence or two that is supposed to make you go, "Oh! Let me continue on a little further! That little pump of adrenaline has made my loins giddy!" While the easy-to-understand language obviously contributes to its mainstream success, the sentence structure is nigh to overly simplified in both books.

Actually, Dan Brown reminds me of Star Wars. All six movies suffer from perhaps the worst dialogue ever written, just like Brown's novels. You want to know what would have made the last three Star Wars worth the hoopla? Make the dialogue believable. Hire Quentin Tarantino to rewrite the script into normal language (without Tarantino dropping swear words in every sentence), and you'll find conversation anybody would have. Normal conversation does not flow like Obi Wan and Anakin, nor does it flow like Langdon and his associates. $5 says a large part of this recent craze has come from the fact anybody with a 4th grade education could read the book and easily follow what's happening. Like the 2am infomercials say, "It's that easy!"

Let's not forget that if you read either of these books, you basically can guess how the other will end. You know who will be bad, who will be good, and that Langdon will score with an intelligent woman because he is a professor.

Then, or course, he explains exactly how you should view each situation. Ever read Steinbeck, or seen either of the "Solaris" movies (or did your mind hurt too much in the first few minutes because you had to think, so you turned it off and watched "Zoolander" instead?)? Depth in art comes through presenting your message and allowing the audience use of their mind to connect the dots on their own. Everybody has read this book, yet you never hear anybody really discussing it in detail in a group setting.

"Why is that, Lowell?" There's nothing to explore! Had the significance of new characters at the end of the book not been explained, that in itself would have produced debates for years on end. I cannot see a high school analysis, let alone a college thesis, be successful by analyzing anything in the novel; there is nothing left to analyze.

Since when has that method produced anything of lasting importance? Even Harry Potter doesn't fall into this trap. I get so mad at the Potter kid sometimes for his lack of self-control, yet at least leaving his teenage mind unanalyzed makes him more well-rounded.

Another rant, I guess. Only because I stayed up late last night, reading the last 100 pages, and realized at the end that the Rushdie quote I wanted to disprove was true.

I'll still see the movie, of course. I mean, it's the latest craze, isn't it?

UPDATE 7/6/06: I saw the movie last night in Boise, Idaho. Was worth using the free passes I had. And I thank Ian McKellan for 50 percent of that.