David P. Goldman says that Ross's take on Brown is ". . . an intelligent thought that has only one defect, namely that of being wrong. Brown really is a malignant, anti-religious peddler of intellectual smut — and that is precisely why people of real but poorly-informed faith devour his dreadful prose."
i read Angels & Demons in 2005 - a gay temp i worked with pressed it on me with much enthusiasm.
i quite enjoyed the book though i wouldn't read another by the man. In a literary sense (characterisation, prose, dialogue, etc.) it was bad but it was so ludicrous - and so ludicrously confident - that it was like talking to an impassioned nutter at the bus stop about how giant lizards control everything - as long as you know you can get away, it's entertaining.
i was somewhat perturbed to find that my temp friend regarded it as non-fiction. i considered lending him Proust but decided against it in the end.
David P. Goldman says that Ross's take on Brown is ". . . an intelligent thought that has only one defect, namely that of being wrong. Brown really is a malignant, anti-religious peddler of intellectual smut — and that is precisely why people of real but poorly-informed faith devour his dreadful prose."
ReplyDeletei read Angels & Demons in 2005 - a gay temp i worked with pressed it on me with much enthusiasm.
ReplyDeletei quite enjoyed the book though i wouldn't read another by the man. In a literary sense (characterisation, prose, dialogue, etc.) it was bad but it was so ludicrous - and so ludicrously confident - that it was like talking to an impassioned nutter at the bus stop about how giant lizards control everything - as long as you know you can get away, it's entertaining.
i was somewhat perturbed to find that my temp friend regarded it as non-fiction. i considered lending him Proust but decided against it in the end.