Well, no. A good reviewer is analyzing the work, rather than the audience. Should I throw up my hands and say, “Well, *I* thought it was garbage, but the sort of fatheads who go in for this stuff will eat it up. It’s good enough for them, I suppose.”

Now that would be patronizing. A book is good or it is bad, no matter who’s reading it.

I agree with you that a reviewer should keep in mind what a book is actually trying to do, and judge it by how well it succeeds at its stated aim; and that’s what I’ve done here.

Because I, too, enjoy thrilling, suspenseful, action-packed stories. But I didn’t find The Lost Symbol to be suspenseful, thrilling, or compelling, and I think I’ve spelled out why.

So yeah, I’m not knocking The Lost Symbol because it’s mainstream genre fiction. I’m knocking it because it is bad mainstream genre fiction.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for taking the time to comment.

Well, no. A good reviewer is analyzing the work, rather than the audience. Should I throw up my hands and say, “Well, *I* thought it was garbage, but the sort of fatheads who go in for this stuff will eat it up. It’s good enough for them, I suppose.”

Now that would be patronizing. A book is good or it is bad, no matter who’s reading it.

I agree with you that a reviewer should keep in mind what a book is actually trying to do, and judge it by how well it succeeds at its stated aim; and that’s what I’ve done here.

Because I, too, enjoy thrilling, suspenseful, action-packed stories. But I didn’t find The Lost Symbol to be suspenseful, thrilling, or compelling, and I think I’ve spelled out why.

So yeah, I’m not knocking The Lost Symbol because it’s mainstream genre fiction. I’m knocking it because it is bad mainstream genre fiction.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for taking the time to comment.

And on your ‘review’: Well it’s quite clearly an attack, not a review. A good reviewer can identify, accept and observe a text from the p.o.v of it’s intended audience. Brown doesn’t write for ‘Up their own arse’, net hacks. He writes for mainstream.For action junkies. For thrillseekers who lke to be literally ‘taken’ on a rollercoaster of (semi)facts. He brings subjects like science, religion, philosophy and art to readers who would never normally encounter such fare. How he covers them, if a little blotchy/fuzzy isn’t really an issue either as I am sure many DB fans(myself included) will agree, he leaves you thirsting for more knowledge and I am never far from a google search when I read DB. I think his style should be applauded more by the snooty egotists who think they have the monopoly on what is ‘good fiction’.
I’m aware this is like 2 or 3 years old..but ‘m baked and bored and was looking into some quasi-philosophical stuff online, ended up here.
Saw you patronisng and insultng your readership/commentors and thought I’d just drop a lttle ‘Bad form, old chap’ in.

And on your ‘review’: Well it’s quite clearly an attack, not a review. A good reviewer can identify, accept and observe a text from the p.o.v of it’s intended audience. Brown doesn’t write for ‘Up their own arse’, net hacks. He writes for mainstream.For action junkies. For thrillseekers who lke to be literally ‘taken’ on a rollercoaster of (semi)facts. He brings subjects like science, religion, philosophy and art to readers who would never normally encounter such fare. How he covers them, if a little blotchy/fuzzy isn’t really an issue either as I am sure many DB fans(myself included) will agree, he leaves you thirsting for more knowledge and I am never far from a google search when I read DB. I think his style should be applauded more by the snooty egotists who think they have the monopoly on what is ‘good fiction’.
I’m aware this is like 2 or 3 years old..but ‘m baked and bored and was looking into some quasi-philosophical stuff online, ended up here.
Saw you patronisng and insultng your readership/commentors and thought I’d just drop a lttle ‘Bad form, old chap’ in.

BAM!

You hit the nail on the head.

BAM!

You hit the nail on the head.