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 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'.

 

[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.