I see Michael Deacon is having some fun at the expense of author Dan Brown in the Telegraph. While I find Brown's writing excessively annoying, I still don't think it is fair or all that funny to attack someone in print in this way. I have to confess the only novel of Brown's I have actually read is The Da Vinci Code, but he managed to hit the target with so many readers that my carping little complaints don't matter at all. Would that every aspiring writer should have such success. Here's the link to the original:
Deacon's piece is a shining example - if a trifle overdone - of overwriting, and for that alone it's worth taking a peek. It's a pity that today's world doesn't abide by the words my mother lived by - 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.' Today it seems no one takes heed of that advice. It is hard to avoid malicious gossip in one form or another, whether it is in the newspapers or on tv or radio. Innuendo and speculation have taken over from news.
Mind you, saying nothing at all doesn't win friends. They tend to take silence as condemnation anyway, so you're damned if you do say something and damned if you don't. In that case, possibly better to be honest and say what you think? At least then if they won't speak to you ever again, you know why.
I think if I got to be as famous as Dan Brown or J K Rowling I'd ignore the critics, wouldn't read their reviews. After all, their invective is nothing more than journalists taking the easy option to fill a column. It has to be easy to mock something than say why a certain book is so good it deserves all the millions of dollars it has earned. That would take a little thought, but I'd much prefer it if they tried to analyse why certain books are so successful.
You might think the flowers in the pic are pretty - and they are; but if you filled your home with them you'd regret it. Garlic grows in abundance in the woods along with the bluebells.