A Book for Profit and a Book for Fun

[lastandleast]

ProfitWhen I was at my last job, I felt ever-so-slightly guilty for calling myself an editor. I wasn't one, not really--I was a manager, an overseer, a busy little bee who moved books from one person to another, making sure things got done. I had some degree of say in how the book looked and just how finely tuned its text would be, but manuscripts

Comments

[saffronlie]

I think that worst part about *that book* is the millions of people who think it is the most brilliant, most well-written novel ever, because they have never read anything where a character has proper motivation or an author uses an original image rather than a cliche. The book is fine for what it is: a pulpy bestseller. But so many people have built it up into so much more than that, and, argh, at the expense of so many other books that are well-written, insightful, and worth reading.

And while the "puzzles" are ludicrously simple, I found major mistakes in his accounts of mediaeval works like Sir Gawain, and, the biggest stupid thing of all: the French girl didn't realise that 'sangreal' means 'holy blood' when French is a Latin-based language.

[lastandleast]

I finally finished it last night, and I'm still sort of in shock at how bad it was. The schlocky ending was just a big, treacle cherry on the top of the poorly written sundae.

I can't knock the book too hard, though, and exactly for the reasons we hate it. Its dumbed-down nature has been drawing non-readers to religion books ever since it was published. The last two places I've worked have published books that sold 5 or 6 times what was anticipated--all because they dealt with Mary Magdalene or the gnostic gospels. One was even mentioned by name in you-know-what, and has been paying my salary for the past six months.

I wonder if the movie will be smarter. It'd almost have to be, really.

[mistressrenet]

I want to watch the movie for the tranwreck value.

[lastandleast]

Oh! And speaking of stupid inconsistencies: the whole apple business is ridiculous. Anyone who has, oh, I don't know, READ THE BOOK OF GENESIS knows that there was no "apple" involved in the fall from Eden. It was a "fruit." An author who was respectful (or aware of) biblical commentary wouldn't have made apples such a big plot point; it's the equivalent of saying that the Knights Templar were guarding the grail in a palace carved out of living rock because that's what happened in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade :b

[sansrialto]

I consider myself a rather voracious reader, and I think it says something when I sat down with a friend's copy and couldn't make it past the second chapter. I will say I (didn't) like how it seemed like each chapter ended with a -

- cliffhanger!

Anyway, this is more evidence towards my theory that The Da Vinci Code is a book for people who don't read books. Also, I've heard terrible things about another one of his secret conspiracy novels, in which the secret code hidden in the first letter of each chapter is supposed to make up for the mathematical and computer science errors throughout the book. Glad he could make a fortune.

[lastandleast]

If The Da Vinci Code had come across my desk as a submission, I would have rejected it =X Which is probably a sad statement about my future in the publishing industry just as much as it is about the quality of the book, but still. It's like Taylor's fancy piano playing at the end of Crazy Beautiful: all sound and fury that signifies nothing.

[azureina]

I have yet to read "The Da Vinci Code," despite much poking and prodding by my friends. Now I will just skip it. Thanks for the warning, so I don't waste my time.

[lastandleast]

Seriously. Just see the movie, if you're interested--this is definitely not one of those books that's going to loose subtle shading and character development on the big screen. It will probably gain some ;)

[azureina]

Reminds me of the time I actually read a Danielle Steel novel. I don't remember which one it was, but I do remember feeling tortured and thinking to myself, "I thought cruel and unusual punishment was unconstitutional." I felt like tearing it up with my red pen and mailing it back to the publisher with a note attached that read "How many trees had to die for this crap?" But alas, I chickened out. :-)

[bellaloca]

Thanks!! I was actually almost having a guilt trip about not reading this particular "Best Seller".
Now I can turn off the guilt and go back to true masterpeieces like "Bubbles in Trouble..."
baha

julie

Da Vinci Code

[katiebae]

I read it for the hype. And thought it was the worst piece of writing that I'd ever read. But I still loved every minute of it because of the history/research (or non research)/potential drama around religious controversy. It spawned a 3 month obsession with Mary Magdalene. I read Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels and Mary, called Magdelene, an epic by Margaret George that I think would be right up your alley.

Have fun!

Re: Da Vinci Code

[lastandleast]

I actually really liked the historical and religious stuff that was going on in the book. It made me want to read more about women in the early church. (Although I have to say the Da Vinci Code did some serious stretching. Sleeping Beauty really being about the hidden nature of the divine feminine? Sure thing, crazy man.)

Thanks for the book recommendations, too :) When you were in your Mary Magdalene phase, did you read Song of the Magdalene, by Donna Jo Napoli? It's great YA fiction that explores what Mary's early life might have been like.

[pithetaphish]

I wonder does anyone at all remember a book published not that long ago called 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'? Da Vinci Code = total rip off. I refuse to read it on principle, but thank you for giving me a decent excuse next time my mother tries to fob the monstrosity on me. The twelfth century 'Quest of the Holy Grail' did it better.

[lastandleast]

Sad but true, my favorite piece of grail lore comes from Monty Python ;) Whatever you do, don't break down and read The Da Vinci Code. You'll never speak to your mother again.