Has anyone here read this? Is this considered garbage?
I imagine that any New York Times best selling author would be shit on. is that a safe assumption? Is /lit/ just not a fan of fiction or what.
>>8011860
I've read Angels and Demons, and I'm sure it's fairly similar.
Like most John Grisham-esque books it's perfectly enjoyable, but it's like bubble gum. You might kind of enjoy it when you're chewing on it, but ultimately it's unsatisfying and you barely remember it. I couldn't tell you about a single character in Angels and Demons and I've only finished it a month ago. The style of writing lends itself more to a TV show than a novel desu. There's nothing it gains by being a book. It wouldn't lose anything by being displayed through a strictly visual medium. Description is sparse, the dialogue is thread-bare, and the prose is almost insultingly blase.
If you're 40, going through menopause and looking for some time to kill while you sip your mimosa's by the beach then this is the book for you. Otherwise wouldn't recommend.
>>8011918
>40
>menopause
I don't think that's how it works. Maybe you've watched too much sex and the city.
>>8011921
Some people do start the menopause that early bro. I agree that it's not that common tho.
Typically it's the women that get paranoid about it and think they'll be barren by 30.
>Is /lit/ just not a fan of fiction or what.
Did you see the list of best books according to /lit/? Like 95% of them is fiction, the remaining nonfiction is philosophy.
>>8011860
Yes.Yes.Yes
I read it when it first came out. I enjoyed it and read 2 or 3 more of his books. I was pretty young though
>>8011860
It's very, very bad.
