Showing posts with label justifiable rage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justifiable rage. Show all posts

Thursday, 27 August 2009

Oh Oh Oh I Got the Dan Brown Blues

So this morning I had the following conversation with a young lady who works in WH Smith.


Me :: [Handing over a card with the meerkat on it which I was buying for my grandmother, who likes meerkats] Just that please.

Lady :: Are you interested in half price Dan Brown today?

Me :: I’m sorry?

Lady :: You can order Dan Brown’s latest book for half price.

Me :: Um, no, thanks. Do I look like a simpleton?

Lady :: Eh?

Me :: No, I was just wondering – do I look like a simpleton? You know, an imbecile.

Lady :: [Not sure] Erm… it’s half price. It’s a promotion.

Me :: The reason I ask, incidentally, is not because I’d necessarily have to be a simpleton to read a Dan Brown book, although…. [waiting in vain for some recognition of a shared sense of intellectual snobbery before giving up and continuing] No, it’s just that, if I did want to buy Dan Brown’s latest book, I’d probably already be aware of the fact. Without being prompted. Don’t you think?

Lady :: We ask everybody.

Me :: Well, I wish you wouldn’t.

Lady :: But we ask everybody.

Me :: Yeah, I’ve gathered that. You ask everybody. Great. It’s just that it doesn’t seem fair to me, you know? I mean, there’s my book, for example, a gorgeous, funny, moving little memoir that no one’s ever heard of, struggling for breath, slowly drowning in a sea of suffocating, interminable dross, and there’s Dan Brown’s latest congregation of moronisms, which has, if memory serves me well, an initial print run of 6.5 million copies – 6.5 million copies which will fly off the shelves like hot cakes in cold climate – and despite this already assured best seller status, WH Smith are making every effort to ram it down the throats of customers who don’t even want it. Two weeks before it comes out and it’s already the literary equivalent of McDonald’s fries. You know? ‘Do you want fries with that?’ Erm, no, thanks. If I’d wanted waxy strips of tasteless toxic spew with my order, I’m pretty sure I would’ve asked for them. Similarly, if I wanted to spend ten pounds on nearly 500 pages of poorly-constructed toilet paper, you would probably have known about it by now. Do you know what I’m trying to say?


Unfortunately, she was serving someone else by then.

Oh, Dan Brown.

How I hate you.



Share on Facebook! Digg this

Thursday, 3 January 2008

Is Bridget Jones’s Diary One Of The Worst Books Ever Written? Or Am I Just Jealous and Wrong?

bulk :: 19st 13 (I don’t understand how. I feel like sobbing)
cigarettes :: 0 (but, I should add, I WANT A CIGARETTE!!!)
nails on fingers :: 0
pieces of Nicorette :: 12
calories :: 1000ish (I’m finding it difficult to count calories. How do you know how many calories are in a vegetable soup for instance? One you make yourself I mean and not one from a tin. I don’t know. I’m guessing. Plus I’m eating loads of bananas and carrots. I packed all the leftover chocolates and stuff from Christmas away in a box. I’m doing all right. But I’m not losing weight)
alcohol units :: 0 (too busy craving tobacco and food to really care)
grumpiness level :: 9

Right. I’ve just finished reading Bridget Jones’s Diary and I have to say, the human race is in dire need of some major cleansing. What a depressingly bad book. ‘Helen Fielding is one of the funniest writers in Britain,’ says Nick Hornby on the front cover, ‘and Bridget Jones is a creation of comic genius.’ What the…? Why is he saying that? Did he want to sleep with her? Had he already slept with her and this was his way of apologising? Same goes for Salman Rushdie. ‘A brilliant comic creation,' blurbs Salman. 'Even men will laugh.’ No, Salman. Salman - no. If a book is genuinely funny, then people will laugh irrespective of their gender. Obviously. ‘Even men will laugh.’ What kind of bullshit is that? As it happens, I did laugh. I laughed, if I remember correctly, four times. Out loud. On the other hand, I also shouted out in anger, annoyance and plain old despair at least forty times.

So what’s wrong with this book?

Well, in a nutshell: flaccid, half-dimensional characterisation; sickeningly pat plotting – the ending in particular is an embarrassing slap in the face for anyone who's ever shown even a passing consideration for the real world; downright adolescent ideas about style – those bits where she writes ‘drunk’ and ends up with her typing slurred are a disgrace. Also, I know Helen Fielding can’t exactly be blamed for this, but Jesus, you’d think Picador could afford a decent proof reader. There are so many incredible howlers in BJD that it beggars belief. On page 174 of the above edition for example, not only is there an ‘on one’ instead of a ‘no one’, but there is also – drum roll – this: ‘that’s a nice shirt your wearing’. NOOOOOoooooooo! God in Heaven, strike me down and bugger me.

Oh, and just to show that it’s not merely bad proof reading, Fielding also manages at one stage to use the expression ‘pales into significance’. Coming quite late in the book, this kick in the lexical balls tips Fielding – in my opinion - from ‘hideously bad’ into ‘without doubt one of the worst writers in the English language’.

One thing I particularly hated about the book was the woefully predictable oscillation of mood. Thus: ‘7pm. Opened bottle of wine feeling desperate and lonely and miserable. 7.30pm. Oh unassailable joy! Daniel called and declared his undying love for me. 8pm. Daniel called back and said he’d called the wrong number by mistake. He thought I was Ryan Giggs. (Who?) Opened second bottle of wine. Binged on marshmallow and lard and put on 3 stone in 20 minutes. 9pm. Oh insurmountable ecstasy! Mark Darcy called and declared his undying love for me. He’s coming over. Performed quick gastric bypass procedure on self and washed hair. Down to 9 stone but still look podgy. 10.30pm. Mark Darcy stood me up. Why am I so lonely? Why? Why? Why?’ Because you’re a bore, Bridget, that’s why. You’re a fucking bore.

Of course I know we don’t have to like our fictional protagonists. Patrick Bateman, for example, is vile. As is Humbert Humbert, and even Homer Simpson. Yet in each of these cases, it is possible to describe these characters using one or more of the following adjectives: ‘interesting’, ‘fascinating’, ‘funny’ or ‘well-written’. And all of these things are important. However, if you insist on creating a character who is dull, slow-witted, utterly charmless, and self-indulgent to the point of mentally ill, then you’d better make sure that you write them well. Otherwise no one will read your book.

So, I suppose the next question has to be: how could I believe so passionately that what I’m saying is true and yet at the same time be so wildly and obviously wrong?

Bridget Jones's Diary has apparently sold more than four million copies worldwide. It has also picked up astonishing reviews by the likes of the inestimable Jilly Cooper and (a clearly fuckstruck) Salman Rushdie.

My instinct is to say that these people are all wrong and that I know dross when I read it and that Bridget Jones’s Diary is utter, utter dross. But… what if it’s me?

This is a chilling thought. Ordinarily at this point I would smoke a cigarette. But obviously now I can’t. So instead I shall just sit here, in my study, in nothing but the light from my computer monitor and I shall weep until dawn.

Amount of people who obviously can be wrong :: 4 million, including Salman shitting Rushdie




Share on Facebook! Digg this