The book's linguistic composition is by no means anything that merits the praise that is attached to the authors that have been mentioned in this thread. However, Brown is a great writer because of his approach to literature. It follows in the footsteps of Shakespeare. They both take events and knowledge, and put their own spin on it. The fact that the book is engaging is what makes it great, not Brown's use of blank verse, personification, solilique, etc. All of which have made an exit from most modern literature.
BBQ Platypus wrote:
I only read two chapters of the book before I threw it away. The story may or may not have been engaging, but I didn't care, because it was the most poorly-written book I have ever read. Then again, I'm used to Beowulf, Faulkner, and Hemingway.
I've actually read lots of reviews that say the movie sucks. Thoughts?
I have a friend who said it was poorly written too. She said it was really simple, and she and I had the same experience as you BBQ. I had AP English with her last year, and after you read Jane Austen, Mary Shelley and Oscar Wilde for a year there are a lot of books that seem poorly written.
Wow, AP English, thank you for gracing us with your presence. This was a nice jab at establishing your credibility surrounding the subject. So if you wanna play, I am a Senior in English...college. Not that I have any more validity than any other person on this forum, but if you think that AP English puts you in a superior position to criticize, you should probably go ask your teacher for help, because it seems you have your head way up your a$$.