Why are poeple against Dan Brown?

[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

 

[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.

[quote[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.[/QUOTE]

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.