Dan Brown - Inferno

[Sockor]

The next illuminating Dan Brown novel will have the renowned symbologist Robert Langdon on his home soil for a change. Symbologist Robert Langdon will travel to Berkeley, California, in the United States of America. There he must solve an elaborate puzzle, following clues in the works of Timothy Leary.
Aided in his quest by an aging, yet still attractive, female psychology student, Robert Langdon has to use his chemically altered conciousness to find out whether there really is a religious fanatic plotting to force The Establishment upon Robert Langdon's newfound freedom by the means of and elaborate plot, or whether everything is just a hallucination constructed in an elaborate plot in Robert Langdon's altered conciousness.

 

[MetalPig]

Wasn't Inferno the video that Susan found in Steve's apartment?

 

[Monza]

Wasn't Inferno the video that Susan found in Steve's apartment?

I like films with lesbians in them, 'cause it's nice to think there are attractive women out there who can't find a boyfriend.

 

[smartcooky]

I just don't get why people have such a problem with Dan Brown and his books. He's a fiction writer, and yet people seem to take great delight in criticising his books because they are historically inaccurate.

Well I have news for them... some of the greatest fiction writers of all time did exactly what Dan Brown does, taking their own fictional historical context, and creating a story around it.

Take Alexandre Dumas' "The Man in the Iron Mask". Its a fictional story that posits King Louis the XIV had a win brother that was taken away at birth, and eventually locked up the Bastille with an iron mask to that he would not be recognised. The story is total fiction, it never happened, and yet, people don't jump up and down about it, complaining that is sullies the true history of France.

Likewise the works of Charles Dickens, Wilbur Smith, Leon Uris, all fiction, all have swathes of historical errors or fabrications of things that simply did not happen.

Dan Brown is a fiction writer, just like any other fiction writer. He spins a yarn.

Where is the problem?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think many have already pointed out his horrid prose, clichés and illogical narratives. But on the accuracy point the thing is that he goes around claiming that everything in the book is true, save for the particular character and the plot. However we all should know by now that that is simply not true. He constantly tries to wow people with "revelations".

The Da Vinci Code is the story of renowned Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, who is summoned to the Louvre Museum to examine a series of cryptic symbols relating to Da Vinci's artwork. In decrypting the code, he uncovers the key to one of the greatest mysteries of all time…and he becomes a hunted man. One of the many qualities that makes The Da Vinci Code unique is the factual nature of the story. All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate…as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci's most famous paintings.

Linky.

 

[angrysoba]

I just don't get why people have such a problem with Dan Brown and his books. He's a fiction writer, and yet people seem to take great delight in criticising his books because they are historically inaccurate.

Well I have news for them... some of the greatest fiction writers of all time did exactly what Dan Brown does, taking their own fictional historical context, and creating a story around it.

Take Alexandre Dumas' "The Man in the Iron Mask". Its a fictional story that posits King Louis the XIV had a win brother that was taken away at birth, and eventually locked up the Bastille with an iron mask to that he would not be recognised. The story is total fiction, it never happened, and yet, people don't jump up and down about it, complaining that is sullies the true history of France.

Likewise the works of Charles Dickens, Wilbur Smith, Leon Uris, all fiction, all have swathes of historical errors or fabrications of things that simply did not happen.

Dan Brown is a fiction writer, just like any other fiction writer. He spins a yarn.

Where is the problem?

I have no problem reading historical fiction; that's Flashman in my avatar. The difference is that George MacDonald Fraser was a great writer and Dan Brown is turd.

 

[timhau]

Dan Brown is a fiction writer, just like any other fiction writer. He spins a yarn.

Where is the problem?

He does it poorly, but that's not all he does. The real problem is that he acts as if some of his fiction isn't fiction at all. This is the text from the page before the Prologue in The Lost Symbol:

FACT:
In 1991, a document was locked in the safe of the director of the CIA. The document is still there today. Its cryptic text includes references to an ancient portal and an unknown location underground. The document also contains the phrase "It’s buried out there somewhere."

All organizations in this novel exist, including the Freemasons, the Invisible College, the Office of Security, the SMSC, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real.

The "real science" he refers to includes real sciencey stuff like weighing the human soul.

 

[Craig B]

... Dan Brown is a fiction writer, just like any other fiction writer. He spins a yarn.

Where is the problem?

The problem is that he's a really bad writer, not that he's a fiction writer.

 

[smartcooky]

I think many have already pointed out his horrid prose, clichés and illogical narratives. But on the accuracy point the thing is that he goes around claiming that everything in the book is true, save for the particular character and the plot. However we all should know by now that that is simply not true. He constantly tries to wow people with "revelations".

Linky.

I have no problem reading historical fiction; that's Flashman in my avatar. The difference is that George MacDonald Fraser was a great writer and Dan Brown is turd.

He does it poorly, but that's not all he does. The real problem is that he acts as if some of his fiction isn't fiction at all. This is the text from the page before the Prologue in The Lost Symbol:

The "real science" he refers to includes real sciencey stuff like weighing the human soul.

The problem is that he's a really bad writer, not that he's a fiction writer.

First let me say that I hold no truck for Dan Brown, I have never read any of this books. I have seen the movie of "The Da Vinci Code" (which I thought was contrived and uninspiring). I have no issue with any of its fictional historical context. For example, no one even knows for sure if Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene reall existed, let alone whether or not they were married. No-one knows if his bloodline exists or not; no-one knows the real reason why the Knights Templar were slaughtered. All of the so-called facts in this movie cannot be proven or disproven. However, none of this matters anyway. Brown is not writing textbooks on history, he's writing fiction.

In 1988, a writer called Salman Rushdie wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses" which was a work of fiction, However, it earned him a "fatwa" (effectively a death sentence) from Muslim extremists. IMO, Brown is being treated in a similar fashion, (except for the death sentence of course) especially by the Catholic Church and historical Academia.

Kicking up all this fuss about Brown and his books only serves to ensure that they get presented to a much wider audience. This is something known as "The Spycatcher Effect". In 1987 a former MI5 officer published a book called "Spycatcher". It was an overly long, boring and hard to read tome that would have been destined for the discount racks of second hand bookshops had it not been for the fact that the British government tried to ban it. That action turned it into a best-seller.

 

[angrysoba]

First let me say that I hold no truck for Dan Brown, I have never read any of this books. I have seen the movie of "The Da Vinci Code" (which I thought was contrived and uninspiring). I have no issue with any of its fictional historical context. For example, no one even knows for sure if Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene reall existed, let alone whether or not they were married. No-one knows if his bloodline exists or not; no-one knows the real reason why the Knights Templar were slaughtered. All of the so-called facts in this movie cannot be proven or disproven. However, none of this matters anyway. Brown is not writing textbooks on history, he's writing fiction.

In 1988, a writer called Salman Rushdie wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses" which was a work of fiction, However, it earned him a "fatwa" (effectively a death sentence) from Muslim extremists. IMO, Brown is being treated in a similar fashion, (except for the death sentence of course) especially by the Catholic Church and historical Academia.

Kicking up all this fuss about Brown and his books only serves to ensure that they get presented to a much wider audience. This is something known as "The Spycatcher Effect". In 1987 a former MI5 officer published a book called "Spycatcher". It was an overly long, boring and hard to read tome that would have been destined for the discount racks of second hand bookshops had it not been for the fact that the British government tried to ban it. That action turned it into a best-seller.

I hope Brown sells as many copies of his books as he wants. But I can still take the piss out of his writing style whether or not you try to shame me with absurd comparisons to Salman Rushdie.

 

[shuttlt]

The next illuminating Dan Brown novel will have the renowned symbologist Robert Langdon on his home soil for a change. Symbologist Robert Langdon will travel to Berkeley, California, in the United States of America. There he must solve an elaborate puzzle, following clues in the works of Timothy Leary.
Aided in his quest by an aging, yet still attractive, female psychology student, Robert Langdon has to use his chemically altered conciousness to find out whether there really is a religious fanatic plotting to force The Establishment upon Robert Langdon's newfound freedom by the means of and elaborate plot, or whether everything is just a hallucination constructed in an elaborate plot in Robert Langdon's altered conciousness.

So, pseudo Philip k Dick then.

 

[hgc]

In 1988, a writer called Salman Rushdie wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses" which was a work of fiction, However, it earned him a "fatwa" (effectively a death sentence) from Muslim extremists. IMO, Brown is being treated in a similar fashion, (except for the death sentence of course) especially by the Catholic Church and historical Academia.

Based on your statement, you seem understand that the Rushdie had a price on his head. Except it wasn't just "Muslim extremists," it was the supreme leader of Iran. You may even be aware that Rushdie went into hiding for a few years.

How in Great Googly Moogly is that similar to Dan Brown being critiqued and made fun of? Get a grip. Jeesh.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Oooh! I think we just cracked the plot to the next Dan Brown book!

The Mystic Map - Robert Langdon discovers a hidden map in Michelangelo's Sixtine Chapel Ceiling, containing references to the Bayeux tapestry. It is little known that the Bayeux tapestry was in fact created by a secret order of anti-catholic monks, hiding the great secret of the Vatican. This further takes him to the various copies of the Canterbury tales, revealing that Geoffrey Chaucer was in fact the leader of this order for many years, his work, involving alchemy, culminating in the founding of the Anglican church, by Henry VIII, who was in fact the great-great-great-grandson of Chaucer. Langdon reveals, through synthesis of these documents, that the Catholic Church was in fact originally a militant branch of the Roman empire, and ever since the fall, has been hell-bent on reinstating the empire. Thus, the Church was responsible for Gengis Khan, Nazi Germany, the Cultural Revolution, the reign of terror in the Soviet Union, among many other things. The main foe of the Catholic Church, the British Empire, having fallen, leaves a power vacuum.

The Pope, furious over Langdon's revelations, sends his hitman, Father Lombardi, an italian warrior-priest who hunts the enemies of the church with a cross-shaped sword, to neutralize Langdon. Langdon has to team up with the Prince of Wales and Archbishop of Canterbury to take down the Church once and for all!

 

[smartcooky]

Based on your statement, you seem understand that the Rushdie had a price on his head. Except it wasn't just "Muslim extremists," it was the supreme leader of Iran. You may even be aware that Rushdie went into hiding for a few years.

How in Great Googly Moogly is that similar to Dan Brown being critiqued and made fun of? Get a grip. Jeesh.

You do understand the difference between similar and the same, right?

Similar - Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
Same - Identical; not different; unchanged.

Rushdie was criticised for his work of fiction by Islamic clerics worldwide because his book was considered by Muslims to be offensive to Muslims.
Brown was criticised for his work of fiction by Christian clerics worldwide because his book was considered by Christians to be offensive to Christians

These criticisms are similar, although not the same. The major and important difference being (which I acknowledged in my post) the absence of a price on Brown's head. Incidentally, as you rightly pointed out, the price on Rushdie's was ordered by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Well, he was a Muslim extremist last time I looked!!!

I venture to say that, had Dan Brown lived at a time when Christians were as hard line and as dogmatic in their approach to suppressing contrary viewpoints as Muslim extremists are now, and he had suggested that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married, then he would either have had a price on his head, or been dragged before The Inquisition; or both!

 

[hgc]

You do understand the difference between similar and the same, right?

Similar - Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
Same - Identical; not different; unchanged.

Rushdie was criticised for his work of fiction by Islamic clerics worldwide because his book was considered by Muslims to be offensive to Muslims.
Brown was criticised for his work of fiction by Christian clerics worldwide because his book was considered by Christians to be offensive to Christians

These criticisms are similar, although not the same. The major and important difference being (which I acknowledged in my post) the absence of a price on Brown's head. Incidentally, as you rightly pointed out, the price on Rushdie's was ordered by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Well, he was a Muslim extremist last time I looked!!!

I venture to say that, had Dan Brown lived at a time when Christians were as hard line and as dogmatic in their approach to suppressing contrary viewpoints as Muslim extremists are now, and he had suggested that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married, then he would either have had a price on his head, or been dragged before The Inquisition; or both!

It's funny. I thought that your post was a response to this thread, in which it was posted. You see, no one here said word boo about any alleged sacrilege on Brown's part, because no one cares.

The entirety of the critique has to do with bad writing and/or bad history. As for bad history, yes that can happen even in works of fiction. So, when you come into this thread and start saying that criticisms of Dan Brown are similar to the fatwa on Rushdie, you're missed your target. They're not similar in the least, unless Ayatollah Khomeini had proclaimed that Salmon Rushdie used a lot of mixed metaphors, so go get him.

 

[angrysoba]

Rushdie was criticised for his work of fiction by Islamic clerics worldwide because his book was considered by Muslims to be offensive to Muslims.
Brown was criticised for his work of fiction by Christian clerics worldwide because his book was considered by Christians to be offensive to Christians

These criticisms are similar, although not the same. The major and important difference being (which I acknowledged in my post) the absence of a price on Brown's head. Incidentally, as you rightly pointed out, the price on Rushdie's was ordered by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Well, he was a Muslim extremist last time I looked!!!

I venture to say that, had Dan Brown lived at a time when Christians were as hard line and as dogmatic in their approach to suppressing contrary viewpoints as Muslim extremists are now, and he had suggested that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married, then he would either have had a price on his head, or been dragged before The Inquisition; or both!

Not really that similar though are they unless you can find effigy burning of Dan Brown. The closest I found was this group of rather placid looking demonstrators:



The language has little resemblance in appearance, character or "quantity" given that there are multiple death threats in any Salman Rushdie demo:



Although there is a similarity in that they both attract people who spell incorrectly. The one in the middle is being obviously subversive by drawing a smiley face on the "Holly Koran".

But I wonder if Salman Rushdie is thinking, "Ooh the piss takes that Dan Brown gets for his clunky prose is similar to the literary criticism I received from the Ayatollah Khomeini. My translators who were killed must have been glad they didn't get Dan Brown's books to translate."

 

[jond]

I predict that Dan Brown's next novel will be about the Turin Shroud, and its title will be "Touching Cloth". If that turns out to be true, I think Randi owes me a million bucks. Or possibly not, because as predictions go, that one's not all that unpredictable.

You owe me a new monitor!

Will the audio book be narrated by Jermey Clarkson?

 

[smartcooky]

It's funny. I thought that your post was a response to this thread, in which it was posted. You see, no one here said word boo about any alleged sacrilege on Brown's part, because no one cares.

The entirety of the critique has to do with bad writing and/or bad history. As for bad history, yes that can happen even in works of fiction. So, when you come into this thread and start saying that criticisms of Dan Brown are similar to the fatwa on Rushdie, you're missed your target. They're not similar in the least, unless Ayatollah Khomeini had proclaimed that Salmon Rushdie used a lot of mixed metaphors, so go get him.

Perhaps there is a world beyond JREF that you're yet to discover.

 

[smartcooky]

You owe me a new monitor!

Will the audio book be narrated by Jeremy Clarkson?

Well you owe me a new keyboard, and you can get me another coffee while you're at it!

 

[Hecubas]

So, last night I was at the store when I noticed a single copy of Inferno on the shelf. For a brief moment, I almost considered picking it up. Maybe it would be halfway good. Then I remembered how I felt when I finished Lost Symbol. Not going to do that again.

I think the whole experience of reading his novels made me realize that I generally dislike fiction that takes itself too seriously while incorporating elements that are already stretching my suspension of disbelief.