stevew1805

Thank you very much. You are most kind. S

Thanks a for a great explanation Tony. I wasn't trying to stir things up, it's just that I have been thinking a lot about carp behaviour, and I am interested in any views or experiences. Thanks again Tony, S

Sorry guys, I have been following the thread with interest. Tony, can you substantiate your statement above, or is it just your opinion? Many thanks, S

Good luck Micky.

Point taken. Your advice is good, so a public thanks to you, and a public apology if I have caused offence to any others. None meant. Good fishing all. S

If I were to assess what you have written, the result would be as crystal for those who understand education. However, I draw your attention to what you have said in quotes above and ask the inevitable question: given the former admission, how can you possibly substantiate the latter assertion? You seem to be arguing this: something is enjoyable, ergo it is good, but I am hopeful that you can see the speared and wholly obvious flaw in this suggestion. There seems little point in continuing this thread really. I have pointed out some issues with Mr Brown's writing, and if you cannot see them (and you don't read) I fail to see how you can defend them. Let us leave things as they are now. I will carry on reading (and thus educating myself), and you can carry on with your own method of self realisation. I rather think the gulf between us is too great to do anything other than this. I wish you well, good luck, and tight lines. S

Quite so. I agree entirely. In fact - that's my point. I would suggest, as time goes on, My Brown's works will slowly drift out of print and be found only in second hand book stalls; whereas Tolstoy will remain "regarded as among the greatest of European novelists". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy But then he is not everyone's cup of tea, I understand that. The reason I posted on this thread was that Mr Dan Brown was getting good press when he very clearly does not deserve it. But if you won't take my word for it, here is Stephen Fry (who does write well): "complete loose stool-water" and "arse (backside) gravy of the worst kind." And here is Stephen King (not quite so good as the previous Stephen): Stephen King put Dan Brown's work and "Jokes for the John" on the same level, calling such literature the "intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese." Of course everyone is entitled to their own likes and opinions, but you really should believe me when I say that Dan Brown's work is poor; even if you enjoy it. I am only a novice when it comes to carp fishing, but I know considerably more about literature.

I too sometimes like to pour over an easy read when I am stressed or tired. But when I am trying to read for educational purposes, how do I learn from a book (even a carping book) without thinking?

135 words? Hardly War and Peace (1408 pages)? I don't really think I am too much of a whiz with a pen. But I do try hard on presenting my thoughts on forums such as this so people can easily understand what I am trying to say. When the medium you are using is utterly dominated by the written word, I feel the least I can do is to try and make the posts as pleasant and readable as possible. Seems only fair to me.

Have you read "The Secret Carp"? If anything I think that may be even better

That's fine Beza, but let me try and explain what I mean. A novel like The Da Vinci code has, at the very least, two levels. The first is the language and construction of the work. The second is the message or story. Many people mistake a good story for a well written book, when it is perfectly possible to tell a good story badly, or even a bad story well. The Da Vinci Code is a good story, which is why it ended as a best seller. However, it was badly written, which is why I make my point above. I tend to observe the language first and the message second. A lot of folk observe the message first and the language not at all - which is why the top ten fictional books are mostly poor when viewed as literary efforts. This state of affairs has generally come about owing to the manner in which English is taught in our schools. I don't know too much about modern teaching, but I was taught only the very basics of grammar, and had to teach myself the rest. When I realised I had to do this, I was cheesed off to say the least. I felt let down. But there you are. To give you an example - a chap could say: "Ta very much. Im grateful to ya". Or he could say: "It is not a thing for which one can render formal thanks in formal words. I store it in the treasure-house of my heart. I keep it there as a secret debt that I am glad to think I can never possibly repay. It is embalmed and kept sweet by the myrrh and cassia of many tears. When wisdom has been profitless to me, philosophy barren, and the proverbs and phrases of those who have sought to give me consolation as dust and ashes in my mouth, the memory of that little, lovely, silent act of love has unsealed for me all the wells of pity: made the desert blossom like a rose, and brought me out of the bitterness of lonely exile into harmony with the wounded, broken, and great heart of the world." The message is basically the same; but the writing in the first example is boorish, whereas in the second it is profoundly beautiful! Dan Brown could write the first piece quite easily, but the second would, I believe, be totally beyond him S

Hi Kev'. Yes, I know the guys (not personally) and I am sure they are top anglers, but Century is almost making me wince But then, I am a fussy so and so.

Thanks Jon, Some of the subject matter you refer to has been much on my mind of late. Thanks for the heads up. When I am through my back log of books, I may well pick this one up. Thanks again, S

I am sorry to have to say this Tony - Dan Brown is popular novelist, but he can't write for toffee. Just like the Mills and Boon crowd. I rarely read fiction (mainly because I am continually disappointed), but I was caught in an airport one time, so I did read The Da Vinci Code. The writing is dreadful. He has not the slightest conception of how to construct fluid and balanced sentences; he is wooden, stilted, and his style (such as it is) is closer to Janet and John than to any author of merit. He has a good eye for a story - but he can't write! S

Half way through. Very disappointing