The Formula!

A Dan Brown fan writes to Cynthia Crossen of the WSJ and makes the case, as it were, for the immortality of Browndom:

I just finished reading "The Lost Symbol" [by Dan Brown], which I thought was as good as "The Da Vinci Code." I think Brown tells such great stories that people will still be reading them in 100 years. I have the feeling some people would disagree.

You can't always trust your feelings, but in this case, Jackpot! Bingo! Big Prize! Smile for the Camera! Crossen's response is excellent and quite interesting. Here is part of it:

Looking at the best-selling-fiction list of 100 years ago, I'm afraid I'd have to join the naysayers on the question of Mr. Brown's longevity. The No. 1 best seller in 1909 was "The Inner Shrine" by Basil King, a cleric who took up writing when failing eyesight forced his retirement from the church. In addition to writing several other commercially successful novels, Mr. King also communicated with spirits, particularly one "Henry Talbot." ...

Only a handful of books now considered classics were best sellers in their time: Edith Wharton's "House of Mirth" (1905); Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" (1906); and Sinclair Lewis's "Main Street" (1921) all sold well. The most popular book between 1895 and 1918 was "Quo Vadis" by Henryk Sienkiewicz; he also won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1905. ...

Edward Weeks, once editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine, studied what made a best seller in the 1930s. The formula, he concluded, was 45% timeliness, 25% emotion, 15% characterization, 10% invention and 5% advertising. That sounds about right to me.

Hard to say, of course, but I think the formula for Brown's success is more along these lines:

• 32% timeliness. Or maybe 66.6%. People are suckers for Catholic bashing.
• 10% emotion. Perhaps 12%. Granted, I experienced both laughter and anger reading The Da Vinci Code.
• -12% characterization. I've met rocks—mere pea gravel—more colorful and engaging than Robert Langdon.
• -36% invention. Or, 94% misrepresentation. Take your pick.
• 129% advertising. Some would say 2,157%, if you throw in the laughable positive reviews from major newspapers and the infomercials run by various TV networks.

Which totals up to...well, hey, let's just say my approach to totaling numbers is based on Browns' approach to research and facts. Consider it a form of homage.

Oh, speaking of Dan Brown fans, this newspaper notice is from a library in Washington state:

Dan Brown's eagerly awaited follow-up to his international bestseller The Da Vinci Code has finally arrived. The Lost Symbol has been out for just over a month now and the library can't keep a copy on the shelves. Our waiting list grows daily as patrons come in droves, desperate to get their hands on the New York Times bestseller. ...

Against the clock and aided by Solomon's sister Katherine, an experimental scientist, Langdon is on the run from a psychopath and the CIA. Non-stop action and intrigue from the first sentence, along with a wealth of historical facts, mysticism and theology, make this a gripping read.

Dan Brown is a must-read for those who like puzzles and a fast-paced action thriller with unexpected twists in the plot. As in the two previous Robert Landon novels, Brown combines ancient mysticism and high technology and spins it into an over-the-top but plausible adventure story.

Plausible? Like Scooby Doo? Or A-Team?

Comments

[Randy]

The second time today I have seen Quo Vadis mentioned. It was recomended on a CD I was listening to as a great book to help you understand the 1st century church. Unfortunately my list of books to read is very long.

[Sandra Miesel]

Ah, but Brown has slipped to second place on the best seller list, according to Friday's WSJ.

QUO VADIS really is worth reading. The movie is awfully stiff, notable only for the contrasting performances of Leo Genn (Petronius) and Peter Ustinov (Nero).

[coffeecatholic.wordpress.com]

I am of the opinion that those who read Dan Brown and proclaim him an author for all seasons do so because he is in fact the only author they have read. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the classics, including modern ones like Graham Greene and Faulkner, has an understanding of what true longevity is. There will always be authors that appeal to emotions, but not enough of authors who appeal to the soul.

Oh, and before the accusations of snobbery start being hurled at me, do remember that I have no problem with reading for pure entertainment. How else would I get my mystery and fantasy novels in?

[Jackson]

Don't worry, coffee, it's not snobbery, but simply reality. One who has tasted of the heights can never again consider Jack-in-the-Box as gourmet. I feel sorry for that fan and those like her. She subsists on junk food yet she's unaware of it, so immersed is she in this mode that as she drowns in the shallows she can only say, like the fish, "Water? WHAT water??"

[Paul H]

and spins it into an over-the-top but plausible adventure story.

Yeah, but keep in mind that there are people who thought that The X-Files was plausible....

[Janny]

I think "over the top" and "plausible" are actually mutually exclusive terms, aren't they?
But then, again, this IS written in a newspaper, which is no doubt staffed by people who were never taught English in their Journalism classes because grammar, syntax, and word usage were "too restrictive" to their creative spirits.

So what you don't know...you don't know.

JB