Why are poeple against Dan Brown?

[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)"



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,

 

[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)"

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.

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.

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.

 

[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 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.