It’s actually very rare that I would read a book because of a family member, because we just don’t have a lot aesthetically in common, and when my father picked out The Book of Lies for me I was surprised (that he would choose something—he is a list-user) and a little frustrated (because it was not something I would normally read and I would feel guilty about not reading it). Then, in typical my-dad fashion, he was all, “Yeah, I was thinking that you could probably finish that one pretty fast while you were still here, so I could have it after.” N.B.: Those readers who know my dad will not be the least surprised at this remark, though others may find it rude or even scandalous.
So this is how I came to read Brad Meltzer’s The Book of Lies, which falls into the broad category of nonbloggable books. Or does it? Now, the matter of Taste came up in a recent conversation with friends, and ever since then I’ve been noticing and thinking, but I’m not even going to go there. And anyway, I’d have to say that on the whole The Book of Lies is a success: I read it in one sitting, at the end of every chapter I wanted to move straight on to the next one, and there was a fairly continuous feeling of excitement and tension that I don’t encounter in my normal reading life. Yes, the writing was bad, and yes, at one point it referred to what “Naomi” said in the attic when of course it was Serena who had been in the attic (and there are only two female characters in the novel).
But. The point is, what is the name of this new genre that is completely and 100% imitative of The Da Vinci Code, that is to say, of Angels and Demons? Yes, The Da Vinci Code became the most popular thing since sliced bread, so I can completely understand that it would spark knockoffs, but from my limited experience I think it’s actually gone to another level. The Da Vinci Code is like a template for a genre as well-defined as the detective story, and with just as many mysteries to make up and then solve. Is it just that I’m not exposed to this kind of thing enough? Did Tom Clancy do it too, or Stephen King, or whoever like that? Because while I see them as wildly popular and perhaps somewhat faddish, I don’t think I have ever seen, springing fully formed from a single novel, an archetype like this. It’s weird.
At the same time, I feel like it can’t possibly be new. Maybe detective fiction did start this way. But no, it doesn’t seem this mechanical—some does, but not all. The mechanical stuff is the stuff we say is bad. Is there nonmechanical, nonbad da-Vinci-genre? I don’t know; I suppose it’s possible but it’s hard to imagine something overcoming that shadow.
I have a lot of different thoughts here, which shouldn’t be too surprising since I spent a lot of time writing about DVC that horribly written book — my focus was on the treatment of artworks, but, at least as I found, along with that you deal with a lot of conspiracy theory treated as both revisionist history and iconography. In that way, I never quite thought of it in terms of “detective fiction.” Eh, I could go on too long, but the conspiracy element and “secret” history is the fad I always found to be most profound with those books and the subsequent industry they created — however, then I have to ask myself, well what about Crying of Lot 49? I wish I could come up with an older example, so maybe the trail is dead in the mid-20th century — but the question it makes me ask is why or what about our culture/society/tastes/whatever makes this type of ‘secret history being unveiled’ or story so attractive right now? Sorry if I misread your idea of this potential genre.
Richardson’s Pamela sparked the epistolary craze, in England and elsewhere in the mid-18th century. Ditto for The Castle of Otranto and Gothic novels. And Waverley and historical novels.
Each of these was followed quite quickly by an explosion of knockoffs, imitations, parodies, variations, some of which turned out to be much better than the originator. Maybe the great post-Dan Brown antiquated conspiracy novel has yet to be written. Or maybe when it is it will actually be inspired by Pynchon or Eco or Borges or The Savage Detectives, and Dan Brown will be forgotten.
Somehow I hadn’t thought of the epistolary novels, though Gothic novels definitely did come to mind. I like the idea that we could be experiencing a formative derivative/formulaic period. And I think “antiquated conspiracy novel,” while apt, might not catch on as the genre name.
Al—yeah, I wasn’t saying it is detective fiction, just comparing it to another genre that has a few similarities (clues, discovery, reveal, etc.). What I think it interesting about it is that it’s taken the conspiracy/iconography as such a big thing and that’s what makes it seem more formulaic.
Part of me thinks the reason we like the “secret history being unveiled” is kind of like the reason we like “memoirs”…all those DVC readers wanted a thriller, but so many of them were most excited by being able to say, at the end, “Did you know that the Catholic Church…”
Pynchon/Eco/Borges are all fascinating story-tellers and writers — staggeringly above Dan Brown’s fiction, especially stylistically. Not to mention ideologically polarized from Brown, and much more convincingly so.
That’s not to say I dislike Brown; his writing style is painful but his plotting and ideas can be excellent (for the genre, anyway).