Why are poeple against Dan Brown?

[AgeGap]

I have seen several threads where people have slated Dan Brown. He writes fiction but the fiction gets attacked but this does not seem to stem from the quality of the writing alone. What gives?

[Big Les]

My main problem with him is that his books may be stocked in the Fiction section of your local bookshop, but they (Da Vinci Code in particular) are marketed as fact, primarily by the author himself.

Haven't you read the "these are all facts!" prefaces? Or seen his straight-faced interviews in related documentaries where he peddles the same pseudohistorical BS as in the books?

There's a line between fiction and misrepresentation of the past, and Brown is well over it in my view. And arguably, not because he genuinely believes in or cares about the hypotheses that inspire his writing (ie Baigent and Leigh), but because the more he can blur the line, the more creduloids will lap up his books.

See Tony Robinson's "The Real Da Vinci Code" for a demolishing of the "facts" that Brown supports.

[MG1962]

I've read two of his books - Point Deception and DaVinci Code - neither impressed me, both had serious factual issues, and the pacing was just all over the place

[HarryKeogh]

My main problem with him is that his books may be stocked in the Fiction section of your local bookshop, but they (Da Vinci Code in particular) are marketed as fact, primarily by the author himself.

Yeah, it's that he states it as fact is what gets me. He is a terrible researcher. Actually, he isn't. His wife is. When he testified in that English plagiarism trial he stated that his wife gathers interesting "facts" as she pores over books and gives them to Dan and he writes a story around it, fitting these facts in.

I'll admit I read the book and it helped a plane ride go by quickly but it's easy to keep a reader interested when each chapter is two pages long and ends with a cliffhanger.

[baron]

I have seen several threads where people have slated Dan Brown. He writes fiction but the fiction gets attacked but this does not seem to stem from the quality of the writing alone. What gives?

"Isn't the fact that he's the one of the worst published writers in the world enough?" pondered Baron, whose screen-name comes from the French word 'baron', which in turn can be traced back to the Frankish 'baro' meaning 'freeman' or 'warrior'.

[Wildy]

It's strange though. The Da Vinci Code ruined the rest of his work for me. When I first read Angels and Demons I actually quite enjoyed the book. I later read the criticism and for some reason it doesn't bother me as much.

However, I can't pick up that book and read it without thinking of the former.

[E.J.Armstrong]

My main problem with him is that his books may be stocked in the Fiction section of your local bookshop, but they (Da Vinci Code in particular) are marketed as fact, primarily by the author himself.

Haven't you read the "these are all facts!" prefaces? Or seen his straight-faced interviews in related documentaries where he peddles the same pseudohistorical BS as in the books?

There's a line between fiction and misrepresentation of the past, and Brown is well over it in my view. And arguably, not because he genuinely believes in or cares about the hypotheses that inspire his writing (ie Baigent and Leigh), but because the more he can blur the line, the more creduloids will lap up his books.

See Tony Robinson's "The Real Da Vinci Code" for a demolishing of the "facts" that Brown supports.
There I am afraid you are wrong. I have met other people who have made the same mistake.

If you re-read the pages at the start of the Da Vinci code he makes no representation of fact other than what does exist. I am afraid you have duped yourself into believing something that isn't a fact.

[Big Les]

There I am afraid you are wrong. I have met other people who have made the same mistake.

If you re-read the pages at the start of the Da Vinci code he makes no representation of fact other than what does exist. I am afraid you have duped yourself into believing something that isn't a fact.

He says; “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”.

Even if you argue that this is technically correct, i.e. his descriptions are accurate but his interpretations are not, the line is clearly intended to lend credibility to his (actually other people's) specious interpretations of said evidence.

He also says, quite specifically, that; "The Priory of Sion- A European secret society founded in 1099- is a real organization"

Again, taken strictly literally, he has covered himself. If, by "real organisation", a hoax club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion) set up in 1956 qualifies as "real". This is the very definition of misleading IMO.

Moreover, he restates and defends the claims of the book as fact (or at least, reasonable historical interpretations) in interviews quite regularly. As the majority of the claims have already been made by others in non-fiction, to repeat them in fictional form with a superfluous (dis)claimer clearly intended to blur the lines, is at the least to endorse those older books and TV shows, if not to make the claims again himself in a misleading fashion. Perhaps he intends just to add to the immersion factor of the book, but the result is a lot of people believing what's in the book. Is this his responsibility? I believe it is.

[NobbyNobbs]

When I read "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton, I was thoroughly taken in. It was so well done, I was completely convinced it was non-fiction. It was only by carefully reading the bibliography that I found out otherwise.

Knowing that made me even more entranced. I thought it was a great piece of writing.

So, that isn't the reason I don't like Dan Brown. I can't even fault his stories; I think he's got some neat plot ideas.

I just don't think he's that good of a writer, plain and simple.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There I am afraid you are wrong. I have met other people who have made the same mistake.

If you re-read the pages at the start of the Da Vinci code he makes no representation of fact other than what does exist. I am afraid you have duped yourself into believing something that isn't a fact.

Exactly.

[sthomson]

I read "The Da Vinci Code", and I thoroughly disliked it. The only reason for finishing it was to fend off accusations of pre-judgment.

I disliked it because it took an interesting conspiracy theory described in Holy Blood, Holy Cross and made it utterly boring. Also, all that "Religion hates women, but paganism is totally pro-women!" got really tiring. And I didn't like that breathless, rushing-from-the-fire-into-the-pan tone of the whole novel.

And Dan? Even a high school writer learns "Show, don't tell."

[Big Les]

Exactly.

Are you seriously saying that he doesn't intend that preface to lend some historical credibility to the contents? You have to see the book in the context of 20 years of the same damn pseudo-historical conspiracy theory, claimed in all that time as fact, published in books purporting to be history books, shown on documentaries intended to be serious, and put up on websites likewise.

Then along comes Dan Brown, with essentially the same story, but in fictional form. He lends it credibility with that misleading preface, and then proceeds to defend the supposedly fictional claims of the novel in further TV documentaries.

That's my problem, and historian's problem, with him. That his preface technically avoids styling the claims within the book as factual, is little different than a psychic's "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer. In fact, it's worse, because it's only there to draw the reader further into the notion that the book relates to real events.

Take the Priory of Sion claim in that preface - do you really think that to claim the organisation as "real" is not misleading? I mean the Mickey Mouse Club is "real" too, but so what? If he meant to say "there was a hoax club set up in the 50s that's nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about", why even say it? To lend credibility to the claims of the novel, and by extension, all the "factual" books and media that have been produced on precisely the same themes.

[ingoa]

I started Angels and Demons. After about 20 pages or so I dropped it into the bin.

I have been working at CERN for 15 years. The physics he describes is wrong, the place he describes does not exist, everything is wrong. Why does he use names of real organisations if he want to describe something totally different?

I cannot say much about the plot (could not stand it long enough to discover a plot), but his writing is really bad. The persons he describes are similar to Batman villains.

[calebprime]

"Isn't the fact that he's the one of the worst published writers in the world enough?" pondered Baron, whose screen-name comes from the French word 'baron', which in turn can be traced back to the Frankish 'baro' meaning 'freeman' or 'warrior'.

:D

[Wildy]

I started Angels and Demons. After about 20 pages or so I dropped it into the bin.

I have been working at CERN for 15 years. The physics he describes is wrong, the place he describes does not exist, everything is wrong. Why does he use names of real organisations if he want to describe something totally different?

I cannot say much about the plot (could not stand it long enough to discover a plot), but his writing is really bad. The persons he describes are similar to Batman villains.

Basically the plot was the following:

The Illuminati steal some anti-matter from CERN and place it under the Vatican where it will sit until the battery that creates a field of some sort runs out and would cause annihilation and make the Vatican blow up in a magnificent manner while at the same time the four preferati have been kidnapped and are being killed and branded with the four elements (earth, fire, wind, water) for some reason that I don't quite understand but probably to keep the Swiss Guard from finding the anti-matter and then something happens and Langdon finds himself in a helicopter with the former Popes aide who turns out to be the son of the former Pope, and there is an explosion and there is a discussion about there being two Popes due to some law thingy then the story ends with Langdon and the girl going to Florence or someplace like that.

As you can see I don't really remember the end off the top of my head, except that it got sort of stupid.

[Wowbagger]

I can easily see why people would be against Dan Brown. Blurring the lines of fact and fiction can be very dangerous.

But, I liked some of his books, for some reason. The pacing, and the weaving of events, made it all quite entertaining. Even if you have check parts of your brain at the door.

[ravdin]

I only read one of his books, The Da Vinci Code. It was pretty far fetched (not something I necessarily mind in a work of fiction). The whole novel was one extended chase scene, from one close escape to the next. It wasn't bad, but I thought it was overrated.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

You and I might know it's fiction but Dan Brown and people who believe in his fantasies, like one idiot I once had the unfortunate displeasure of meeting, don't. It's also one of the worst novels I've ever read. Completely uneven, jumbled, just awful.

I'd call it a leaden and pedestrian potboiler but I feel that's unfair to leaden and pedestrian potboilers. As Salman Rushdie said "Do not start me on The Da Vinci Code, a novel so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name.... but even Dan Brown must live. Preferably not write, but live."

I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the movie alot, though. Thankfully, I snuck into it after A Prairie Home Companion so none of my 10 bucks went to Dan Brown.

As Roger Ebert put it, "Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane."

[orpheus]

I picked up The Da Vinci Code once in a bookshop. Tried to read the first page. Such terrible writing! I couldn't get past that page without feeling ill.

[Worm]

The writing in the Da Vinci Code is bad - I just don't like it.

And there are many factual errors. The one that stands out to me, as an owner of a Smart car, is that the car chase scene with the Smart car is impossible...Smart cars don't work like that. I'm biased, I admit, but it's just shoddy research.

I think people wouldn't slate him so much if he hadn't been hailed as the next saviour of popular literature. His talent doesn't live up to the hype.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I picked up The Da Vinci Code once in a bookshop. Tried to read the first page. Such terrible writing! I couldn't get past that page without feeling ill.

Yeah...and I read the whole book! :faint:

That's how I felt about The Devil Wears Prada- I finally picked it up when I became the Last Person in the English-speaking World Not To Read It and couldn't get past the first two pages. Terrible...just terrible.

[Redtail]

The writing in the Da Vinci Code is bad - I just don't like it.

And there are many factual errors. The one that stands out to me, as an owner of a Smart car, is that the car chase scene with the Smart car is impossible...Smart cars don't work like that. I'm biased, I admit, but it's just shoddy research.

I think people wouldn't slate him so much if he hadn't been hailed as the next saviour of popular literature. His talent doesn't live up to the hype.

Ah, you missed the part about her laying her 'Busa down before she got the smart car.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8KdtuBBLM

[athon]

"Isn't the fact that he's the one of the worst published writers in the world enough?" pondered Baron, whose screen-name comes from the French word 'baron', which in turn can be traced back to the Frankish 'baro' meaning 'freeman' or 'warrior'.

Haha, brilliant. Surely you've got your first novel coming out on the back of this, Baron.

Athon

[athon]

The bottom line for me is that he is an incredibly poor writer.

The aim of a good author is to form a bridge between the reader and the fiction without the reader being aware of it. This means subtly weaving information into the narrative, as opposed to 'infodumping' gratuitous amounts of facts onto the reader in order to create background or the scenario. Brown doesn't have the first clue about how to do this.

In addition, a good author will understand that those who feel inclined to read his book, in general, will by those attracted by the notion of the material. Therefore you should be satisfied that the fiction you are forming isn't so outlandish that people who have some knowledge or interest in the topic will feel distanced by its inaccuracy.

Brown's popularity came on the back of a hype wave. Pure and simple. People who don't usually read novels found the action elements appealing, as well as the simplicity of the mystery. Coupled with the dubious nature of how much was 'fictious', this created a swell of new novel readers who hyped the books. The bottom line, however, is that the quality of the fiction is beyond poor.

If you want something worthwhile in the genre, go Umberto Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum'.

Athon

[timhau]

Agreed. Brown doesn't do subtle. At all.

There's also something strange about a ciphering expert who can solve mysteries that have baffled the best minds of our species for centuries, and yet is completely dumbfounded when he encounters mirror writing.

[tkingdoll]

I haven't read any of his books, I don't enjoy much contemporary airport fodder so have avoided them up til now. However, regarding blurring the lines between fact and fiction, that's a common device. Look at Carter Beats the Devil for a shining example of how it should be done.

The quote Big Les posted from the preface of Da Vinci is a little on the vague side. But let's be honest, it's in Brown's best interests if his readers take the novel as more fact than fiction. It fans the hype, stirs the publicity pot, gets nuns protesting which makes headlines which sells more books. His preface aside, has he gone on record as saying "it's all fiction, please don't be a paranoid conspiracy theorist"? If he's actively encouraging the spread of misinformation as fact, then that's a bad thing. But if he's just being vague in order to sell more books...well, he's not the first, last and probably not the worst.

[Wildy]

Maybe all the people at the places mentioned who had to put up signs pointing out that the Da Vinci Code isn't real should ask Dan Brown for compensation.

[tkingdoll]

Maybe all the people at the places mentioned who had to put up signs pointing out that the Da Vinci Code isn't real should ask Dan Brown for compensation.

Compensation for the tens of thousands in extra tourism revenue they received as a result? :rolleyes:

[Big Les]

His preface aside, has he gone on record as saying "it's all fiction, please don't be a paranoid conspiracy theorist"?

I'm confident in saying "no", because in every interview I've seen, he's supported the contents of his novel as fact. In the second "Good Morning" video in this list (http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/breakingnews.html), he says he started out a sceptic, and after researching the book, became a believer in the theory (which is "not his theory").

He's unequivocal about it.

His FAQ (http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html), though more cautious in places, contains similar endorsements of the subject as valid historically speaking. For example;

WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Hardly. In fact, I'm quite the opposite--more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, or many of the other "mysteries" that permeate pop culture. However, the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss.

You may recognise this a the classic woo ploy of "I used to be a sceptic, the evidence made me a believer" line, used to persuade others of the credibility of a claim for which the evidence is in fact lacking.

It's clear to me that he certainly is "actively encouraging the spread of misinformation as fact".
And that is indeed a bad thing.

[timhau]

Confession time: My wife and I spent a week in Edinburgh in the summer of 2006, and we did go to the Rosslyn Chapel one morning -- something we probably wouldn't have done if it wasn't for The Da Vinci Code. I'm glad we did, it is an intriguing little church.

However, a week or so later a friend visited the place, and when he was there, someone had put a wheelbarrow full of small bags of some dark brown substance near the parking lot, with a sign "Da Vinci Horse Manure -- £1 / bag".

[ingoa]

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html


Well, CERN does not get tourism revenues but had to answer a lot of inquiries. This takes time of people who have better things to do.

[tkingdoll]

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html


Well, CERN does not get tourism revenues but had to answer a lot of inquiries. This takes time of people who have better things to do.

Any evidence that this is a problem? Looks to me like they've got themselves some free publicity, and probably a hell of a lot more traffic to their site than they'd normally get. And those reading the site will be educating themselves.

I don't see any losers here.

[timhau]

I don't see any losers here.

What about homicidal albino monks who work for Opus Dei?

[tkingdoll]

What about homicidal albino monks who work for Opus Dei?

Ah, the forgotten victims of Brown's seed :(

They should set up a support group. A secret one.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Confession time: My wife and I spent a week in Edinburgh in the summer of 2006, and we did go to the Rosslyn Chapel one morning -- something we probably wouldn't have done if it wasn't for The Da Vinci Code. I'm glad we did, it is an intriguing little church.

I went to the Temple Church last time I was in London, because I had read the book. I had never visited it before, since I figured it was just another of the dozens of other churches on my map.

It was fun to hang around in there and try to figure out who the DaVinci rubes were. One guy must have taken 20 pictures of the "different" grave marker (IIRC, one of the plot points was that one of the grave markers was somehow different than the others). But it was neat - only a few people were there (for those who have never been to London, it can be a bit tricky to find, and once you do, it can be easy to walk past - it is very small), and I got to talk to the curator. I didn't mention anything about the DaVinci Code, I figured he was tired of hearing about it.

I also saw Isaac Newtons tomb in Westminster Abbey, which I had missed on previous visits.

[Big Les]

I'd like to get around to visiting it, partly because, unlike Rosslyn, there is a genuine Templar connection, but mainly because of the early armour depicted on the grave effigies.

I'm glad that people who are with it are being inspired to investigate real history. I would likely never have developed my interest in Rosslyn without all the nonsense that's been talked about the place, of which he is just one of the latest salesmen. I would have no problem with the man if he didn't claim the basis for his fiction as fact.

[malbui]

Well, CERN does not get tourism revenues but had to answer a lot of inquiries. This takes time of people who have better things to do.


I'm hearing similar noises about the Open Day that's scheduled for 6 April!

(I live in Prévessin, btw)

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Confession time: My wife and I spent a week in Edinburgh in the summer of 2006, and we did go to the Rosslyn Chapel one morning -- something we probably wouldn't have done if it wasn't for The Da Vinci Code. I'm glad we did, it is an intriguing little church.

However, a week or so later a friend visited the place, and when he was there, someone had put a wheelbarrow full of small bags of some dark brown substance near the parking lot, with a sign "Da Vinci Horse Manure -- £1 / bag".

Allright, I better fess up, too. I checked out the Opus Dei headquarters in New York City after reading The DaVinci Code and while it was still a hot topic, got a kick out of taking out of towners there.

Well, in the first place, I was disappointed. Not only is there no one visibly torturing themselves :p but their building is really plain and ugly and unassuming, too. If they really paid 250 million for that, they got robbed. The DaVinci Code conspiracy theorists should visit it just to put their fantasies about the power of Opus Dei to rest.

And in the second place, I got a big laugh out of who they share the block with- their neighbors are a nursing home and the Yeshiva University. I kid you not.

[dudalb]

Brown gets knocked because
A: He is a lousy writer. He has no idea how to write a good suspense novel.
B. He plays fast and loose as to whether he is claiming that what he is peddling in his novel is fact or not. He makes a lot of statements that are very ambigious.
There is no serious debate that his theories are total BS.

[timhau]

Brown gets knocked because
A: He is a lousy writer. He has no idea how to write a good suspense novel.

He has no idea how to write a good sentence.

[godless dave]

At first I just thought he was bad writer, until I got to the part in The Da Vinci Code where a character said English was ideal for (something) because it was the European language with the least amount of Latin in it. Anyone who knows anything about the Indo-European languages and the history of English knows that's nonsense. Sloppy research is one thing, but that statement was just ridiculous.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I also hold him responsible (although I know it is not his fault) for the piles of copy cat books which every airport seems to think is the only thing anyone will ever want to read. Seems like every publisher in the world believes that having read one poorly written book about codes, conspiracy theories and religious secrets, I have some desire to repeat the experience.

[ingoa]

I'm hearing similar noises about the Open Day that's scheduled for 6 April!

(I live in Prévessin, btw)

Happy birthday, Malbui.

I lived a few years in Gex and later some years in St. Jean de Gonville.

If you want to go to the open day of CERN... Take a bike. The last one in which I participated had parking cars all over the place. St. Genis, Meyrin all full. No parking places to be found. Pure chaos, but quite a lot of fun. :)

[malbui]

Happy birthday, Malbui.

I lived a few years in Gex and later some years in St. Jean de Gonville.

If you want to go to the open day of CERN... Take a bike. The last one in which I participated had parking cars all over the place. St. Genis, Meyrin all full. No parking places to be found. Pure chaos, but quite a lot of fun. :)


Thanks. I'm going to go on foot - it's not far and the exercise will do me good!

[ZouPrime]

There's also something strange about a ciphering expert who can solve mysteries that have baffled the best minds of our species for centuries, and yet is completely dumbfounded when he encounters mirror writing.

Heh. Yes, this part cracked me up too. IIRC, the characters (including a professional crytographer!) take close to two pages before finally figuring out that the message is simply written backward. I remember it well because at first I didn't understand what they were arguing about and why they couldn't read the message. I had to reread the passage before finally figuring out that "mirroring" was the actual plot point. From an author who claim to have an interest in cryptography, that's pretty pathetic.

[RobRoy]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress. I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton: cardboard cut-out characters, easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys", fun, but not unexpected, twists, and an interesting premise that doesn't require much thought. General readers, like those who made Da Vinci such a hit, like their heroes and heroines simple, almost always right, underdogs who escape by their wits, and get the girl/guy.

It's nice and tidy for a world that almost never is.

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

[Retrograde]

Heh. Yes, this part cracked me up too. IIRC, the characters (including a professional crytographer!) take close to two pages before finally figuring out that the message is simply written backward.

I listened to a recorded version of The DaVinci Code (I like listening to them while doing repetitive, mindless jobs such as weeding) which made the puzzles *slightly* harder to decipher - i.e., 15 seconds instead of 5. When they got to the point where the super-intelligent cryptographer was trying to figure out the cryptext cylinder using the clue "ancient wisdom" I found myself shouting "it's your name, you ninny!". But for me all the book's credibility vanished in the Louvre scenes: how does one drive an 18-wheeler in Paris anyway, much less find the bathrooms in the Louvre?

I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton

There's brain candy and then there's brain candy. With only a finite amount of time I'd rather spend it reading the equivalent of a well-crafted dark chocolate truffle than a vending machine Hershey bar.

If you want a Leonardo Da Vinci conspiracy book that doesn't treat the reader as a backwards 12-year-old, I recommend The Secret Supper by Javier Sierra.

[RobRoy]

There's brain candy and then there's brain candy. With only a finite amount of time I'd rather spend it reading the equivalent of a well-crafted dark chocolate truffle than a vending machine Hershey bar.

You say dark chocolate truffle, and I say New York cheesecake with strawberry sauce. It all depends on how you like your brain candy.

I even sometimes like bad chinese food. I'm willing to slum it from time to time. :covereyes

If you want a Leonardo Da Vinci conspiracy book that doesn't treat the reader as a backwards 12-year-old, I recommend The Secret Supper by Javier Sierra.

And yet most people read on a 6th-grade/12-year-old level. :D

I've heard of this novel but haven't read it. For my money, and my brain-candy, I feel I can safely digest both with equal gusto. :blush:

[sthomson]

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

That's a little presumptuous. Many people have already pointed out why they don't like him or his books. You disagree, and that's fine, but to imply we dislike him because we're jealous is a little weird.

It just seems silly to read Dan Brown when Pynchon did it better and smarter in The Crying of Lot 49.

[RobRoy]

That's a little presumptuous. Many people have already pointed out why they don't like him or his books. You disagree, and that's fine, but to imply we dislike him because we're jealous is a little weird.

Not at all. I didn't mean to imply jealousy, and I certainly didn't state it. Just that if Brown hadn't been as successful as he was, like say Da Vinci had done a modest trade, but remained mostly off the pop culture radar, he wouldnt have come under such scrutiny and then there wouldn't be so many folk "against" him for whatever reasons, real, justifiable, or not.

Makes him a nice, big, fat, rich, and deserving target. But all that stems from his success.:)

It just seems silly to read Dan Brown when Pynchon did it better and smarter in The Crying of Lot 49.

No offense if this isn't what you're saying, but isn't that presumptuous. Assuming someone's reasons for reading Brown are "silly" just because someone did the story better justice? :D

[sthomson]

Not at all. I didn't mean to imply jealousy, and I certainly didn't state it. Just that if Brown hadn't been as successful as he was, like say Da Vinci had done a modest trade, but remained mostly off the pop culture radar, he wouldnt have come under such scrutiny and then there wouldn't be so many folk "against" him for whatever reasons, real, justifiable, or not.

So you're saying that, if Mr. Brown hadn't been famous, then we wouldn't know who he was, so we couldn't dislike him?

Well...duh. But, that's not the reason we dislike him, which was the original question.

No offense if this isn't what you're saying, but isn't that presumptuous. Assuming someone's reasons for reading Brown are "silly" just because someone did the story better justice? :D

I understand why people read Dan Brown's books, and I don't think those reasons are silly. But I think his books are silly, and I think the act of reading The DaVinci Code is also a bit silly, especially after it was so popular. For awhile there, 75% of people on any plane flight, who were reading, were reading that book*, even though it's not particularly good, and even though there are better examples of the genre that many people haven't read. To me, that's a bit silly - that such a stunted example of fiction became so tremendously popular, when more intriguing and captivating fiction often goes unnoticed.

So many people (including me) read it partly out of some feeling of obligation to pop culture. And, like I said, the only reason I finished it was so I could say, "Look! I read the whole thing! And I didn't like it!" I know there were others out there like me. And yes, I think that's one example of a silly reason to read a novel!

* Figure pulled from Maison Derriere

[Spindrift]

I read the DaVinci Code and thought, man the basic premise is pretty good but what awful execution. A couple things that stuck out to me were that an Englishman speaking French could fool a Frenchman. And that British police would follow the orders of a French police officer without any questions. It's been a while since I read it, but there were a bunch of things that while I was reading it, I was like, "wait that's wrong". I'd look it up and it was wrong.

Being a poor writer who sells a lot of books doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is that Brown is conning people. He is so disingenuous about the fact that most of the book is fictional based on nothing more than his imaginings. His contention that the book is based on fact is laughable. I'm surprised that he got the fact that Paris is in France correct.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress. I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton: cardboard cut-out characters, easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys", fun, but not unexpected, twists, and an interesting premise that doesn't require much thought. General readers, like those who made Da Vinci such a hit, like their heroes and heroines simple, almost always right, underdogs who escape by their wits, and get the girl/guy.

It's nice and tidy for a world that almost never is.

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

My sentiments exactly.

[RobRoy]

So you're saying that, if Mr. Brown hadn't been famous, then we wouldn't know who he was, so we couldn't dislike him?

Well...duh. But, that's not the reason we dislike him, which was the original question.

No. My example provided for him to be successful, even famous and still not earn as much ire as he has. Mediocre books doing well is nothing new. Mediocre books doing through-the-roof stellar is. The OP didn't ask the "reason we dislike him". The OP asked, "[Dan Brown] writes fiction but [the attacks do] not seem to stem from the quality of the writing alone. What gives?"

The OP stated that it's not the quality of the writing, but for those who have expressed a dislike Brown, Da Vinci or both so far, they've almost exclusively focussed on the writing.

There are any number of published works that are whole orders of magnitude worse than Brown in their inability to research, convey character, deliver a plot, or provide a meaningful storyline to a reader. They don't receive the scrutiny of author and work to the same degree.

The only difference then is the level of success. It's because he was so successful that he painted a target, and so everything up to and including his mediocre writing has been attacked.

I understand why people read Dan Brown's books, and I don't think those reasons are silly. But I think his books are silly, and I think the act of reading The DaVinci Code is also a bit silly, especially after it was so popular. For awhile there, 75% of people on any plane flight, who were reading, were reading that book*, even though it's not particularly good, and even though there are better examples of the genre that many people haven't read. To me, that's a bit silly - that such a stunted example of fiction became so tremendously popular, when more intriguing and captivating fiction often goes unnoticed.

Well, I don't want to get into a semantics argument over which part is the silliness. Suffice to say that I agree with your conclusing statement. It's unfortunate that better fiction is less or unnoticed than Brown . . . which, of course, feed back into my statement of why he is so attached: his level of success. :D

So many people (including me) read it partly out of some feeling of obligation to pop culture. And, like I said, the only reason I finished it was so I could say, "Look! I read the whole thing! And I didn't like it!" I know there were others out there like me. And yes, I think that's one example of a silly reason to read a novel!

Honestly, I don't. If you're going to get involved in the debate, you have to done the background research. I recall a brief argument I had with a college professor regarding the movie Forest Gump, and I cited a particular scene and quoted a line. His response was, "Well, Mr. M, I haven't actually seen the movie, so perhaps I should and we then we can discuss this." Yeah, he was silly.

So your reason seams perfectly sound . . . to me. :)

[athon]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress. I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton: cardboard cut-out characters, easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys", fun, but not unexpected, twists, and an interesting premise that doesn't require much thought. General readers, like those who made Da Vinci such a hit, like their heroes and heroines simple, almost always right, underdogs who escape by their wits, and get the girl/guy.

It's nice and tidy for a world that almost never is.

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

I have nothing against 'brain candy' books. One of my favourites was an awful book called 'The Wolf's Hour', which had a werewolf running rampant against the Nazis. It was so awful, but I loved it anyway. The reason was that in itself it didn't pretend to be anything other than a bad action novel. It followed the formula well, didn't infodump and while the plot was simple and formulaic, it was still written in a style that didn't jar the mind.

Dan Brown does not do that. The formula and style are incongruent, feigning to be intellectual and mysterious while trying to subscribe to an action formula. That in itself is forgiveable, if not for the fact it is writing in way that smacks of the weakness a lot of young writers have, which is to overload it with research they've found interesting but has no direct relevance to the book.

We have a similar writer here in Oz named 'Matthew Reilly' who is just as abhorrent an author. I watched an interview with him once, and couldn't believe how seriously he took himself. He seriously thought his works were intellectually profound.

The point is, even brain candy should be written in a style that doesn't highlight the writer's arrogance, or display obvious ignorance on a topic.

Then again, as I used to tell the students in my writer's club - if only 5% of your readers will know you've rewritten science or history in contradiction of the facts, ask yourself if you're happy with that figure. Dan Brown, IMO, wasn't concerned. I would be, but then that reflects the sorts of books I like to read.

Athon

[athon]

If I were to be perfectly honest, I'm probably not all that annoyed at Brown. The only book I ever burned out of a desire to never have any other poor bastard suffer it was by a guy called 'Scott McBain', called 'Coins of Judas'. It was honestly really, really poorly written (I came close to burning a book called 'Scherherazade' by Anthony O'Neill, but that was because he cheated the ending something shocking). In neither case did it raise as much emotion as my distaste in Brown.

I think it's less because of his personal success, and more because it says something of the taste in literature that manages to catch a hype wave. I've read so many good books in my time which are worthy of praise. And then the people like 'Da Vinci Code' to the extent it becomes such a raging success? It hardly seems to be fair, or make sense.

Athon

[sthomson]

The OP stated that it's not the quality of the writing, but for those who have expressed a dislike Brown, Da Vinci or both so far, they've almost exclusively focussed on the writing.

Perhaps it's not our reasons that are faulty then, but the OP's question.

There are any number of published works that are whole orders of magnitude worse than Brown in their inability to research, convey character, deliver a plot, or provide a meaningful storyline to a reader. They don't receive the scrutiny of author and work to the same degree.

Because, like many here have pointed out, those books don't pretend to be anything other than pure fiction. Do you think The DaVinci Code would have been so famous if he hadn't implied that some of it was true?

The only difference then is the level of success. It's because he was so successful that he painted a target, and so everything up to and including his mediocre writing has been attacked.

I would not say his fame was the cause. Rather, his fame and other's dislike of his books stem from the same source - his irritating publicity campaign, maybe?

If you're going to get involved in the debate, you have to done the background research.

Ah, this is a sort of fallacy I hear often, but it doesn't hold much water with me. It seems to say that we shouldn't form a judgement about anything before we finish every single part of it. Were the last 20 pages of The DaVinci Code any more suited to my tastes than the first 20? Isn't the purpose of book reviews to inform me of whether or not I'll like a certain novel before I waste 3 hours on it?

[timhau]

We have a similar writer here in Oz named 'Matthew Reilly' who is just as abhorrent an author. I watched an interview with him once, and couldn't believe how seriously he took himself. He seriously thought his works were intellectually profound.

Oh, come on; he's way worse than Brown. I've read Temple by Mr. Reilly, and it was hands down the worst book I've ever read. He writes like a ten-year-old in a sugar rush, and the result makes James Patterson sound like Shakespeare. The plot is inane beyond belief. Generally, if a thriller has a twist where the protagonist is saved totally unmotivated miraculous event right out of the blue, it counts as a strike against the book; this one has several -- per chapter.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress.

I bought two of his books at the same time having read none before (must have been some form of deal). Read Da Vinci code, thought it was acceptable holiday/airport reading as brain candy. Started the other (think it was Angels & Demons) and got an overwhelming feeling of having already read it. Others have said the same thing - once you have read one Dan Brown book you have read them all and whatever one you read first is the one you will identify as the best.

[RobRoy]

Perhaps it's not our reasons that are faulty then, but the OP's question.

Fair enough. The thread title and the OP do seem to be asking different questions.

Because, like many here have pointed out, those books don't pretend to be anything other than pure fiction. Do you think The DaVinci Code would have been so famous if he hadn't implied that some of it was true?

That's hard to say. The books are easily accessible to the masses, and the masses literary tastes have never been complicated. The story was straight-forward, and Brown not only holds his reader's hand, but practically drags the reader from concept to conclusion so that you never have to wonder if you've missed something or work hard to figure it out. The "twist" at the end, while not particularly new, was not really in the pop-culture conscious, and has provided interesting fodder for any number of water cooler discussions.

So removing Brown's opening statement of factual accuracy, and the publicity campaign surrounding that statement, and then replacing it with a more honest approach, I'd say that Brown would be less well read, but only marginally. Instead of selling 60 million copies, he may have only sold 30 or 40 million. Instead of being at the New York Times Top Ten list for 120 weeks, he might have only been there for 80 or 90 weeks.

I would not say his fame was the cause. Rather, his fame and other's dislike of his books stem from the same source - his irritating publicity campaign, maybe?

I can agree with this.

Ah, this is a sort of fallacy I hear often, but it doesn't hold much water with me. It seems to say that we shouldn't form a judgement about anything before we finish every single part of it. Were the last 20 pages of The DaVinci Code any more suited to my tastes than the first 20? Isn't the purpose of book reviews to inform me of whether or not I'll like a certain novel before I waste 3 hours on it?

Sorry, I still don't think this is a fallacy. I could go on about Quintillion's "good man, speaking well", but I'll stop trying to defend you to yourself. :D

For me, I prefer to not speak on the subject of a book's apparent worth if I haven't read it, and I prefer the same of anyone else who enters such a discussion. To that end, I appreciate that you went through the motions of completing Da Vinci even if you found it silly from start to finish. ;)

[bigred]

I have seen several threads where people have slated Dan Brown. He writes fiction but the fiction gets attacked but this does not seem to stem from the quality of the writing alone. What gives?
Assuming we're talking about Da Vince Code and/or Angels/Demons, I think there's a lot of either the obligatory I-hate-him-because-he's-so-popular bit, or the whole "look everyone, this or that presented in the novel isn't really true, therefore it sucks.....I am enlightened, don't be stupid, be smart like me and hate it (etc etc)"

:rolleyes:

It's a novel for crying out loud; I think at least some those ideas presented were interesting - and regardless, you don't have to get wrapped up in all that (let alone buy into it) to enjoy. IMO these are light, fast-paced, fun reads; no not "great writing" - but so what?

PS if Brown does misrepresent anything, then nuts to him - but that's a strike on him, not the novels......ie it doesn't make the books any less entertaining.

[bigred]

Well...duh. But, that's not the reason we dislike him, which was the original question. Actually the original question was for what reasons OTHER THAN the novels themselves do people trash Brown's novels. His popularity/success is one obvious reason.

I understand why people read Dan Brown's books, and I don't think those reasons are silly. But I think his books are silly, and I think the act of reading The DaVinci Code is also a bit silly,:boggled:

[Big Les]

Assuming we're talking about Da Vince Code and/or Angels/Demons, I think there's a lot of either the obligatory I-hate-him-because-he's-so-popular bit, or the whole "look everyone, this or that presented in the novel isn't really true, therefore it sucks.....I am enlightened, don't be stupid, be smart like me and hate it (etc etc)"

:rolleyes:

It's not that the book contains duff info, it's that he backs that info all the way, and that it comes on the tail of a whole raft of "factual" pseudohistorical books and media on the subject. The sheer popularity of the novel lends credence to those ideas, even without his tacit support for the likes of Baigent and Leigh.

It's a novel for crying out loud; I think at least some those ideas presented were interesting - and regardless, you don't have to get wrapped up in all that (let alone buy into it) to enjoy. IMO these are light, fast-paced, fun reads; no not "great writing" - but so what?

PS if Brown does misrepresent anything, then nuts to him - but that's a strike on him, not the novels......ie it doesn't make the books any less entertaining.

The OP question was "Why are people against Dan Brown?" not "why are people against his books?". I would have precisely zero problem with his books if he didn't tout their basis as historical fact, or at least, something for which there is evidence and academic support. I actually really like pseudohistorical novels - admittedly the better researched the history and the better the stuff matches current consensus the better, but even the whackier stuff can be really enjoyable.

Bernard Cornwell has written on similar topics, but he doesn't go around claiming that the holy grail is a food platter and really exists. If he did make sensational claims, or support those of others, you can bet he'd both make a lot more press and probably money out of it, and would attract detractors.

Bottom line; if you're going to talk bollocks like Brown does about his fiction, expect to be called on it.

[RobRoy]

It's not that the book contains duff info, it's that he backs that info all the way, and that it comes on the tail of a whole raft of "factual" pseudohistorical books and media on the subject. The sheer popularity of the novel lends credence to those ideas, even without his tacit support for the likes of Baigent and Leigh.

[snip]

Bottom line; if you're going to talk bollocks like Brown does about his fiction, expect to be called on it.

It struck me this morning, while reading up on this thread, that we are presuming Brown doesn't believe, or knows better. What if that isn't the case? The general concensus is that Brown isn't that great of a researcher. During the plagerism trial, he stated that his wife is actually his chief researcher. Could it be that Brown (and/or his wife) actually believes that what he's presented are facts and solid research? Would that change anyone's point of view of the author? One of the issues that constantly comes up is that Brown is deliberately pulling (or trying to pull) one over on his readers with the end result being that he makes money.

What if he legitimately thinks he's done proper research and simply presented his case in a narrative fashion? He then wouldn't actually be talking "bullocks", in his head. Conspiracy theorist, sure.

Bernard Cornwell has written on similar topics, but he doesn't go around claiming that the holy grail is a food platter and really exists. If he did make sensational claims, or support those of others, you can bet he'd both make a lot more press and probably money out of it, and would attract detractors.

OT: I agree. I really enjoy Cornwell. He's more like brain-chips-and-salsa than brain-candy, and his research is pretty good. I also like his notes at the end in which he shares his research, provides some notes, corrects himself and gives reasons for his historical changes.

[RobRoy]

Rats. Double posted.

[Big Les]

It struck me this morning, while reading up on this thread, that we are presuming Brown doesn't believe, or knows better. What if that isn't the case? The general concensus is that Brown isn't that great of a researcher. During the plagerism trial, he stated that his wife is actually his chief researcher. Could it be that Brown (and/or his wife) actually believes that what he's presented are facts and solid research? Would that change anyone's point of view of the author? One of the issues that constantly comes up is that Brown is deliberately pulling (or trying to pull) one over on his readers with the end result being that he makes money.

Oh, absolutely. But that's little better in my book. Ignorance, especially once pointed out, is no excuse. Think how many psychics work for years without ever realising (or acknowledging) that they aren't really psychic.

What if he legitimately thinks he's done proper research and simply presented his case in a narrative fashion? He then wouldn't actually be talking "bullocks", in his head. Conspiracy theorist, sure.

Exactly - the CTists (many of them anyway) believe their BS. That doesn't absolve them of their spreading of misinformation.

There is another option - he might not really care what's accurate and what's not. A lot of people I've known in my life haven't really cared one way or the other. If you were getting paid for one state of affairs, you wouldn't really be too bothered about questioning it.

OT: I agree. I really enjoy Cornwell. He's more like brain-chips-and-salsa than brain-candy, and his research is pretty good. I also like his notes at the end in which he shares his research, provides some notes, corrects himself and gives reasons for his historical changes.

The grail quest was pretty good - I keep meaning to try Sharpe again, but Sean Bean is burned into my brain.

[RobRoy]

Exactly - the CTists (many of them anyway) believe their BS. That doesn't absolve them of their spreading of misinformation.

Except if they're right. That would be not just be an excuse and an absolution, but it would shift them completely the other side of the question, right?

That's not my claim, but there have been important theories and beliefs that were originally decried and belittled. I'm not saying this is one such, but it is hard to know with complete certainty.

There is another option - he might not really care what's accurate and what's not. A lot of people I've known in my life haven't really cared one way or the other. If you were getting paid for one state of affairs, you wouldn't really be too bothered about questioning it.

Agreed. Enough money, as James Caan said in Way of the Gun, is "a motive with a universal adapter. :D

The grail quest was pretty good - I keep meaning to try Sharpe again, but Sean Bean is burned into my brain.

I haven't read Sharpe and I've only seen one of the episodes. Is it because you don't like Sean Bean? My father swears by them.

I am, however, in the midst of reading his Saxon Stories, which, since you liked the Grail Quest, I think you might enjoy.

[Big Les]

Except if they're right. That would be not just be an excuse and an absolution, but it would shift them completely the other side of the question, right?

That's not my claim, but there have been important theories and beliefs that were originally decried and belittled. I'm not saying this is one such, but it is hard to know with complete certainty.

Sure, and that seems to be how alternative history works - what seems superficially plausible and/or attractive (lucrative?) to the claimant is what gets put forward. But as with pseudoscientific and paranormal claims, that's not how it works. The claimant has to provide evidence, or at the very least, make an inference based upon known and accepted historical events, people, places etc. The material Brown drew upon did none of that. He might as well be saying that Jesus was born on mars - it can't be evidenced and it can't be fully disproven. It only seems plausible if you know little of the established history, which most of us don't. Christ, if by some miracle they turned out to be right, we would still have been right to reserve scepticism on the subject in light of the poor quality or lack of evidence.

Agreed. Enough money, as James Caan said in Way of the Gun, is "a motive with a universal adapter. :D

Yup, and that's the other thing about "alternative" history - it's published straight to the media, not through any kind of peer-review system. This is often seen as subversive and refreshing, but in fact it discourages scepticism and criticism, and makes for fast, easy money from the biggest markets possible.

I haven't read Sharpe and I've only seen one of the episodes. Is it because you don't like Sean Bean? My father swears by them.

Oh, I have a soft spot for him really. But he's such a strong character in the TV shows, it makes visualising your own (Londoner!) Sharpe pretty tricky. The books I tried also seemed slow paced compared with the wham-bang action of the hour special TV shows.

I am, however, in the midst of reading his Saxon Stories, which, since you liked the Grail Quest, I think you might enjoy.

Thanks, I'll check that out. It being after christmas, book tokens are not in short supply!

[bigred]

It's not that the book contains duff info, it's that he backs that info all the way, and that it comes on the tail of a whole raft of "factual" pseudohistorical books and media on the subject. The sheer popularity of the novel lends credence to those ideas, even without his tacit support for the likes of Baigent and Leigh. Easy, I'm with you on all this...

The OP question was "Why are people against Dan Brown?" not "why are people against his books?".Actually it isn't, if you read the OP (but the title is misleading).


I actually really like pseudohistorical novels - admittedly the better researched the history and the better the stuff matches current consensus the better, but even the whackier stuff can be really enjoyable.Again we're in violent agreement...

[RobRoy]

Again we're in violent agreement...

OT: Haha. I like this statement! Might make it my new signature. :D

[Complexity]

I was hanging out in a bookstore several years ago, waiting to meet a friend, and I decided to spend some time reading Brown's The Digital Fortress.

I can't remember which technical gaffes he made, although I remember thinking that a layman could have should have done some research.

Then he began the obligatory sex scene, right on schedule.

I stopped and thought, 'Do I want to let this man's portrayal of sex into that finely tuned sexual engine we like to call my brain?' Don't be silly. The book went back on the shelf.

One further aspect of Brown's disappointing fraud is that he'd like us to think he's competent to write a sex scene. His former 'lovers', if any, have my profound sympathy.

A lousy writer, a lousy lover, and probably a lousy person.

Yeah, he has money. I have integrity.

So it goes.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I dislike him because all his "twists" follow the same formula.

That is, the "bad guy" is never the one you are lead to believe it is, it is actually the friend/boss (But not lover, because that would ruin the opportunity to indulge the reader's need for cheesy sex scenes).

After I had read two of the books I could tell exactly who the bad guy was easily in the others.

And yeah, his woo peddling in interviews was annoying.

[RobRoy]

I was hanging out in a bookstore several years ago, waiting to meet a friend, and I decided to spend some time reading Brown's The Digital Fortress.

[snip]

Then he began the obligatory sex scene, right on schedule.



Other fun issues aside, I actually don't recall a sex scene in Digital Fortress.

That is, the "bad guy" is never the one you are lead to believe it is, it is actually the friend/boss (But not lover, because that would ruin the opportunity to indulge the reader's need for cheesy sex scenes).

So just to be clear, you prefer the bad guy be the one you are led to believe it is?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So just to be clear, you prefer the bad guy be the one you are led to believe it is?

I'd just prefer him to mix it up. Sure, be like the sixth HP book and actually make the main character be right for once. Make the lover the bad guy. Do something other than the trusted friend being the shocking twist. Following the same formula makes it really boring.

[Spindrift]

Other fun issues aside, I actually don't recall a sex scene in Digital Fortress.



So just to be clear, you prefer the bad guy be the one you are led to believe it is?

No but once you figure out that in a Brown book that whoever he initially hints at being the bad buy, definitely isn't and the guy he wants you to think is the good guy is the bad guy. Sometimes knowing who the bad guy is but having the protagonist figure out how to prove it is much more suspenseful than what quickly become obvious red herrings.

[RobRoy]

I'd just prefer him to mix it up. Sure, be like the sixth HP book and actually make the main character be right for once. Make the lover the bad guy. Do something other than the trusted friend being the shocking twist. Following the same formula makes it really boring.

Oh, sorry. It's the formula that you object to, rather than trying to put a twist in his work.

[bjornart]

I'm against Dan Brown because it amuses me.

I read The DaVinci Code to be able to properly appreciate the Norwegian parody, the Madonna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(Edvard_Munch)) riddle, and was admittedly prejudiced. But although I'm otherwise quite omnivorous, and even managed to get through the book (and not forever forget the author) where minks were referred to as rodents again and again, The DaVinci Code just had too many slap-my-forehead-and-yell-come-on!-moments for me to want to read another Dan Brown. I don't mind stupid books, I just don't like stupid books that pretend to be intelligent.

And as I said initially, Dan Brown jokes are just very funny.

[timhau]

I don't mind stupid books, I just don't like stupid books that pretend to be intelligent.

Thanks for putting my main issue with Mr. Brown and his works so succinctly.

[Big Les]

Easy, I'm with you on all this...

Actually it isn't, if you read the OP (but the title is misleading).


Again we're in violent agreement...

Points taken bigred, and I like "violent agreement" too!

[Complexity]

Other fun issues aside, I actually don't recall a sex scene in Digital Fortress.


It is possible that I was mistaken or am mistaken now.

I may have been wrong in thinking that a sex scene was about to begin, or I may be mistaken about when of his books I was reading.

Either way, the principles hold:

Don't let Dan Brown screw up your sex life.

Don't let Dan Brown waste a moment of your life.

Don't give Dan Brown any of your money.

[bigred]

I don't mind stupid books, I just don't like stupid books that pretend to be intelligent.Fair enough, although this gets back to where the line is drawn on claiming truths/legit possibilities vs couching something within the realm of fiction....and I maintain that just the fact that he got a lot of people thinking about these things who otherwise wouldn't made it worthwhile regardless.

Points taken bigred, and I like "violent agreement" too!Thanks to you and RR. It often seems a fitting statement at JREF, where debates generally aren't for the meek :cool:

[citizen327]

I read the DaVinci Code a year or so after the hype, and couldn't understand why it was so popular. Yeah, I'll admit I read it quickly - but it was supposed to be read that way, I think. Otherwise, you'd have to think about it, and then you'd get all confused. Basically, I thought it was trashy, like a dime novel or something, and just another piece of sensational "literature." What's the point of respecting an author who has no respect for the intellect of his readers anyway??
At least it got people reading... sort of like the Harry Potter series, right?

[Complexity]

At least it got people reading... sort of like the Harry Potter series, right?


Not right. I quite like the Harry Potter series and think it is good.

I do not think Brown's writing is good in any way.

I don't think Brown got many people reading who didn't read stuff like his anyway.

On the other hand, Harry Potter enticed a great many children (and adults) into reading and into enjoying reading long books. Hurray!

[bigred]

I don't think Brown got many people reading who didn't read stuff like his anyway.I disagree.

And regardless, I think he got an awful lot of people thinking about history/etc a lot more than had previously.

[Spindrift]

I disagree.

And regardless, I think he got an awful lot of people thinking about history/etc a lot more than had previously.

Yeah, but what he mostly created was muddled thinking, because very few bothered to investigate and find the truth about the things Brown wrote. Many took Brown's novel as truth, just ask the people at the Louvre, Roslyn (sp?) chapel and other places in the book who are constantly explaining that it's a novel and you aren't going to find the things in the book in real life.

[bigred]

Some did, some did not. Some of you act like everyone did this, and I don't think it's even close. eg I've seen more than a few articles, books and even TV shows dedicated to debunking - true not as popular as his novels, I doubt they'd have gotten off the ground w/o interest. Again, though, just getting the thought process going about it I don't see as bad, on the whole.

[RobRoy]

I don't think Brown got many people reading who didn't read stuff like his anyway.

The numbers of his success for this particular book do not work if it was only people who "read stuff like his anyway".

Brown's Da Vinci was recommended to me as a "good" or "interesting" read by different people from my immediate circle of friends and family, none of whom He had been recommended to them in a similar fashion from people who also hadn't read him before either. I have heard similar responses from others who have read him, saying they've never read anything like him before.

Now, while you may not find a good side to that, I agree with bigred's take, that the thinking about these questions is definately positive.

[richardm]

I was quite looking forward to reading The da Vinci Code but was pretty disappointed in it. It seemed so clunky. I really did finish it wondering what all the fuss was about.
Like Complexity, I also like the Harry Potter books. I don't think Rowling is necessarily the greatest producer of prose, but she can string together a good story. Dan Brown doesn't (to my mind) seem able to produce prose or string together a good story.

On holiday last year Angels and Demons was on a bookshelf where we were staying so I thought I'd give him a second chance. Well, you know, sometimes when something is hyped as much as The da Vinci Code then it's inevitably going to be a disappointment. But if anything it was even worse. That action sequence in the helicopter was more than enough to make sure I never read another of his novels. Life's too short.

[Big Les]

I don't see how you can argue, just because people fight to reassert the facts once the bogus info is propagated, that the original misrepresentation is justified. By that logic, a war won by a defending country could be seen as a positive act by the invader.

It is certainly true that the best way to approach these things is not just to scoff and dismiss them as academics are wont to do, but to engage with people and present a more accurate version of the same subject in an interesting way. The problem is that the signal to noise ratio IMO is not in favour of the debunkers and sceptics - you may have seen more debunking programmes, but my experience is the opposite. You get a flurry of them as the media look to make more mileage out of sensational claims by turning on them (or attacking a rival's version of events), but the initial round of OMFG NITESTEMPLER LEYLINES!!!!!!!111 gets the most airtime, the most attention, and I would argue, sticks more in the minds of those who lack the time or interest to look deeper (though no doubt many do that, and I commend them for it).

Just as with woo, many would rather embrace the fantasy than seek the truth, because it's less effort and superficially more interesting, exciting, and profound. I can't prove that empirically of course, but that cuts both ways - we'd have to survey media output for both sides, and canvass public opinion/knowledge on a given subject.

[MRC_Hans]

My main problem with him is that his books may be stocked in the Fiction section of your local bookshop, but they (Da Vinci Code in particular) are marketed as fact, primarily by the author himself.

Haven't you read the "these are all facts!" prefaces? Or seen his straight-faced interviews in related documentaries where he peddles the same pseudohistorical BS as in the books?

There's a line between fiction and misrepresentation of the past, and Brown is well over it in my view. And arguably, not because he genuinely believes in or cares about the hypotheses that inspire his writing (ie Baigent and Leigh), but because the more he can blur the line, the more creduloids will lap up his books.

See Tony Robinson's "The Real Da Vinci Code" for a demolishing of the "facts" that Brown supports.
Sorry if this has already been said, I haven't yet read the whole thread, but...

I think a Danish representative of Opus Dey nailed it pretty well in a TV interview. He said: "If you read the first page of The Da Vinci Code, you will notice that right under the title, it says 'a novel'. This means that everything after that, including the 'this is fact' part is .. a novel. In other words, it is fiction."

I read it as such and I think it was good fiction. Not great fiction, but ... good. All is a matter of taste, of course.

Hans

[Big Les]

With respect, Hans, that has been addressed. It's mind-buggeringly obvious that TDC is a work of fiction. The point is that it implies, and Brown states unequivocally elsewhere, that it reflects real history. It drew upon and resurrected the claims of speculative historians that came well before it, so it's not something that can be dismissed in isolation as fiction, as the Opus Dei chap obviously thought he could. I would suggest that the very reason he had to try such a tack was that the media and public were buying Brown's line and making spurious enquiries.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sorry if this has already been said, I haven't yet read the whole thread, but...

I think a Danish representative of Opus Dey nailed it pretty well in a TV interview. He said: "If you read the first page of The Da Vinci Code, you will notice that right under the title, it says 'a novel'. This means that everything after that, including the 'this is fact' part is .. a novel. In other words, it is fiction."

I read it as such and I think it was good fiction. Not great fiction, but ... good. All is a matter of taste, of course.

Hans

Is that before or after the statement of copyright?

If before, then I suggest he should not try using that as a defence to a breach of copyright action!

[gumboot]

Ah, the forgotten victims of Brown's seed :(

They should set up a support group. A secret one.

They have. You just don't know about it.

Because it's secret.

[SoBitter]

The plot and devices were what I didn't like. It was simplistic and the puzzles were easily solved by 95% of readers. This makes the reader feel smart because they figgured it out all on their own. It makes for terribly boring reading though, when you already know the ending. Would Lost still be on air if we knew what the ending would be?

It's YA writing marketed to adults. I've read better YA fiction. The Giver, for one.

[bjornart]

Fair enough, although this gets back to where the line is drawn on claiming truths/legit possibilities vs couching something within the realm of fiction....and I maintain that just the fact that he got a lot of people thinking about these things who otherwise wouldn't made it worthwhile regardless.

From the tiny, but random, sample of "people I overheard talking about the book", he got many more people eating it up as truth, than he got 'thinking' about 'these things'.

[bigred]

Agree to disagree, but my sample is also admittedly small....and even the people eating it up as truth are still at least giving it some thought, misguided and limited though it may be.

[RobRoy]

Agree to disagree, but my sample is also admittedly small....and even the people eating it up as truth are still at least giving it some thought, misguided and limited though it may be.

I tend to agree, bigred. The sampling I have leans in your direction rather than that bjornart's. That doesn't mean to much (except that maybe I'm a sycophant for reasonably intelligent people ;)), but I think it does speak to the premise of the book as a worthwhile one for public discourse.

[Lilith]

Sheesh - such dislike for the book. And the author. I haven't heard or read any interviews by Brown, and may change my mind if I did; but currently I hold nothing against him or the book.

I read the Da Vinci Code a few months ago because my boyfriend had it on his shelf and I recognized it as being a popular novel. I didn't know the hype, and didn't assume that it was too factual. I read the "factual" declaration in the beginning, but didn't take it to heart. Nor did I assume that the story could be true. I saw it as fiction from the get-go. And I enjoyed it. Why? ...

The weaving of actual places, actual people, and actual artwork into a fantastic and intriguing fictional story, I thought, was nicely done.

His writing is "ok" enough, IMHO. Not great.

When reading fiction, I use that thing called "suspension of disbelief" in order to allow the story to transport me to another world; but I never think that world really exists. I didn't wonder about whether the rest of the readers might choose to put too much belief in the book as representing reality. But, really, I think that if this is a problem, the fault lies in those readers' inability to use critical thinking, coupled with their gullibility. Perhaps Brown is capitalizing on this growing tendency.

[Big Les]

Sheesh - such dislike for the book. And the author. I haven't heard or read any interviews by Brown, and may change my mind if I did; but currently I hold nothing against him or the book.

There is at least one linked further back in the thread. There's no doubt that he claims his fictional book is based upon a real conspiracy.

fictional[/I] story, I thought, was nicely done.

His writing is "ok" enough, IMHO. Not great.

When reading fiction, I use that thing called "suspension of disbelief" in order to allow the story to transport me to another world; but I never think that world really exists. I didn't wonder about whether the rest of the readers might choose to put too much belief in the book as representing reality. But, really, I think that if this is a problem, the fault lies in those readers' inability to use critical thinking, coupled with their gullibility. Perhaps Brown is capitalizing on this growing tendency.

Good for you. A lot of people are able to critically separate fact from fiction. A lot aren't. Whether you dislike Brown for perpetuating that sort of ignorance depends on your outlook - should we criticise drug addicts rather than drug dealers? Or both? I would say that uncritical thinking and ignorance are best countered by both educating the consumers and criticising the peddlers. Just as we do with psychics and their patrons.