Dan Brown: why the hate?

[fullflavormenthol]

I think what got to me was the amount of people that would tell me that it "was based on real things". Of course it isn't hard for them to come to those conclusions when Dan Brown is out there pimping his work as based on history and History Channel doing specials about it without someone correcting it.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Oooh, I thought of something else I dislike about Brown. It's not just that he gets facts about art and literature and, you know, everything else wrong--patently, obviously wrong. What really burns my biscuit is the idea that the world's greatest works of art and literature are just secret messages for the mentally challenged experts to figure out. Last Supper? Yeah, I guess it's pretty enough, but that's coincidental. The important thing is that it encodes a conspiracy. Hamlet?* Sure, it's a bit clever, but that's really irrelevant. It's all about the secrets.

*I don't remember that Brown actually discusses Hamlet, but as I recall, Shakespeare was part of the Priory of Sion and therefore one of the keepers of the secret and hinters at the secret.

Agreed. Da Vinci's works are plenty amazing enough without seeing "cool things" in them. Brown violates these works of art by treating them like material for scavenger hunts and "evidence" in his idiotic conspiracy theories. They are no such thing- and not any less interesting for it.

It's hilarious how people take it to be fact. I once had an art history professor who had to tell kids before each semester not to include anything from TDC in their art history papers or homework. Apparently, someone or more than one person had repeated these things about the Mona Lisa and Da Vinci in their work, taking it for actual art history.

As for why his novels are so popular...there's such a thing as schlock value. Some things are great trash and you love them despite knowing they aren't any good; you enjoy them on their own level and just go along with it. Some things are bad trash; you hate them and have zero enjoyment from them because they are just bad and so you enjoy them on no level. Some things you just love to hate and that's what makes the badness good; you enjoy them on a camp level.

Dan Brown seems to fall somewhere between category 1 and category 3.

What makes him so offensive is that he is so big, so popular and so acclaimed by so many people who think it is a great book. If he were less popular, I might be more forgiving.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I love that book. Show of hands in this thread: who has read and liked both Brown and Eco?

Well, um, me, actually...

 

[Travis]

The general population is getting dumber, and the media and writers are adapting.

Do you always just ascribe other peoples tastes in things you dislike to them being "dumber?"

You see. I'm looking at this in the way that art critics hate Kincaid and talk contemptuously about anyone who would but, at the end of the day, most average people would rather have a Kincaid in their house than whatever thing the art critics are masturbating over at the moment. The art critics can cover their houses with "deep" black and white photos of kids having cow dung painted on them and everyone else can get what the critics consider to be "meaningless schlock."

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Do you always just ascribe other peoples tastes in things you dislike to them being "dumber?"

You see. I'm looking at this in the way that art critics hate Kincaid and talk contemptuously about anyone who would but, at the end of the day, most average people would rather have a Kincaid in their house than whatever thing the art critics are masturbating over at the moment. The art critics can cover their houses with "deep" black and white photos of kids having cow dung painted on them and everyone else can get what the critics consider to be "meaningless schlock."

Your point is not a problem to me. You actually like Dan Brown's stories, which is absolutely 100% okay with me. I love the movie Ice Pirates, and people hate me for that. My problem deals with his promotion of his books, and personally I don't care if he is popular. I would spend my entire life going after bad authors if I let everyone get to me.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I love the movie Ice Pirates, and people hate me for that.

Wow, I never thought I'd meet someone who would admit to having watched that movie, much less liking it!

Actually, I kinda liked it too, but only for the camp factor. The aging sequence near the end is fantastic. The the size of the black guy's afro makes me chuckle every time I think of it.

 

[athon]

You see. I'm looking at this in the way that art critics hate Kincaid and talk contemptuously about anyone who would but, at the end of the day, most average people would rather have a Kincaid in their house than whatever thing the art critics are masturbating over at the moment. The art critics can cover their houses with "deep" black and white photos of kids having cow dung painted on them and everyone else can get what the critics consider to be "meaningless schlock."

I'm not sure if you've been reading the same thread I have, but this is a pretty poor comparison based on the responses you've asked for.

This isn't a comparison between Dickens and a comic book. Both are fine pieces of literature in their own way. Nobody is claiming that pulp-fiction is bad, or that everybody should read War and Peace.

What is being claimed is that Dan Brown's work is sloppily written and poorly researched, leading to these negative feelings towards the whole phenomenon. It might still be a matter of personal taste, but it's not a question of whether you like noir or sci-fi. It's about the effort and skill that the writer has put into the work.

Think of it this way - I'm sure you're familiar with a martial art style called the 'drunken monkey' (I think it's called that, at least). Basically the combatant fights in such a way that mimics a drunk, fighting loose and off balance. Doing this would take a fair bit of skill and practice, and is to be commended. A drunk person fighting might look similar, but there is no skill in what they do. Nobody would commend a drunken person in a brawl for their prowess.

Dan Brown is simply the drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit. You can call it luck, or the other guy wasn't looking, or even blame brute force. But you can't say it's because he's a skillful fighter.

The pop-culture world is full of Dan Browns. Musicians who are celebrated in spite of knowing only three chords and stealing a melody from David Bowie; artists who win government grants to blow milk from their nose in demonstration of indigenous whaling issues; writers who reinvent 'vampires' to suit a naive generation of teenage girls. He's not special in that respect, and merely represents the angst of people who feel celebrated art should be a matter of skill and not accident.

Athon

 

[athon]

Well, um, me, actually...

Second.

Eco isn't for everybody. It is hard going. I personally find that rewarding, but not everybody likes to be challenged when they're relaxing with a good book. I can sincerely appreciate that.

So this isn't about some snobbish regard for one style over another.

Athon

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm not sure if you've been reading the same thread I have, but this is a pretty poor comparison based on the responses you've asked for.

This isn't a comparison between Dickens and a comic book. Both are fine pieces of literature in their own way. Nobody is claiming that pulp-fiction is bad, or that everybody should read War and Peace.

What is being claimed is that Dan Brown's work is sloppily written and poorly researched, leading to these negative feelings towards the whole phenomenon. It might still be a matter of personal taste, but it's not a question of whether you like noir or sci-fi. It's about the effort and skill that the writer has put into the work.

Think of it this way - I'm sure you're familiar with a martial art style called the 'drunken monkey' (I think it's called that, at least). Basically the combatant fights in such a way that mimics a drunk, fighting loose and off balance. Doing this would take a fair bit of skill and practice, and is to be commended. A drunk person fighting might look similar, but there is no skill in what they do. Nobody would commend a drunken person in a brawl for their prowess.

Dan Brown is simply the drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit. You can call it luck, or the other guy wasn't looking, or even blame brute force. But you can't say it's because he's a skillful fighter.

The pop-culture world is full of Dan Browns. Musicians who are celebrated in spite of knowing only three chords and stealing a melody from David Bowie; artists who win government grants to blow milk from their nose in demonstration of indigenous whaling issues; writers who reinvent 'vampires' to suit a naive generation of teenage girls. He's not special in that respect, and merely represents the angst of people who feel celebrated art should be a matter of skill and not accident.

Athon

Well said, Sir.

 

[Travis]

Your point is not a problem to me. You actually like Dan Brown's stories, which is absolutely 100% okay with me. I love the movie Ice Pirates, and people hate me for that. My problem deals with his promotion of his books, and personally I don't care if he is popular. I would spend my entire life going after bad authors if I let everyone get to me.

Actually I'm also a fan of Ice Pirates.

I'm not sure if you've been reading the same thread I have, but this is a pretty poor comparison based on the responses you've asked for.

This isn't a comparison between Dickens and a comic book. Both are fine pieces of literature in their own way. Nobody is claiming that pulp-fiction is bad, or that everybody should read War and Peace.

Yet I'd imagine that most people would judge a movie based on a comic book by it's own merits which is precisely what didn't happen with movies based on Dan Brown's work.

What is being claimed is that Dan Brown's work is sloppily written and poorly researched, leading to these negative feelings towards the whole phenomenon. It might still be a matter of personal taste, but it's not a question of whether you like noir or sci-fi. It's about the effort and skill that the writer has put into the work.

However I wonder how much of this is due to people nitpicking them. I mean, exactly how well researched were a lot of works that people deem "classics."

Think of it this way - I'm sure you're familiar with a martial art style called the 'drunken monkey' (I think it's called that, at least). Basically the combatant fights in such a way that mimics a drunk, fighting loose and off balance. Doing this would take a fair bit of skill and practice, and is to be commended. A drunk person fighting might look similar, but there is no skill in what they do. Nobody would commend a drunken person in a brawl for their prowess.

Dan Brown is simply the drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit. You can call it luck, or the other guy wasn't looking, or even blame brute force. But you can't say it's because he's a skillful fighter.

The pop-culture world is full of Dan Browns. Musicians who are celebrated in spite of knowing only three chords and stealing a melody from David Bowie; artists who win government grants to blow milk from their nose in demonstration of indigenous whaling issues; writers who reinvent 'vampires' to suit a naive generation of teenage girls. He's not special in that respect, and merely represents the angst of people who feel celebrated art should be a matter of skill and not accident.

Athon

Interesting points. Do you think Pollock was a genuine artist or a "drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit?" If he is determined to not be genuine should galleries be shamed into not exhibiting his work and his fans shunned and pelted with rotting vegetable matter?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yet I'd imagine that most people would judge a movie based on a comic book by it's own merits which is precisely what didn't happen with movies based on Dan Brown's work.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I haven't read the books, and I went to see Angels and Demons hoping that the movie would be as good as The DaVinci Code. It wasn't. It was boring, not suspenseful, predictable situations, retardedly easy-to-figure-out riddles and plot holes the size of Mack trucks.

My assessment of the movie has no basis on the book as I haven't read the book. I just know that what has been said about the books can easily be said about the movie. So, ya know, if the shoe fits...

 

[hgc]

...
Interesting points. Do you think Pollock was a genuine artist or a "drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit?" If he is determined to not be genuine should galleries be shamed into not exhibiting his work and his fans shunned and pelted with rotting vegetable matter?

Interestingly, Pollack's most important and enduring work was created during the short couple of years in the late 40's when he managed to give up drinking. I think it's safe to say that history has judged, and more than 50 years later Pollack's paintings from this period are thought by people who make it their profession to judge such things to be great and original work.

 

[Skeptic]

Interesting points. Do you think Pollock was a genuine artist or a "drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit?"

A great artist, but you must see the originals.

 

[bethgsd]

Regarding inaccuracies: what did Brown get wrong that was profound and important? I know one friend said he got some of the geography wrong in Angels & Demons but are there other things that were messed up? Things integral to the plots?

In the da Vince Code he has some of the paintings on canvas when they should have been on board. The one the woman is threatening to put her knee through, IIRC.

I thought the book was easy enough to read and didn't expect it to be fact. Co-worker's minister was having a fit because people were getting sucked in to the idea that Jesus had kids, etc. Fiction, people, fiction. Reminds me of my mom asking where all the changes of wardrobe came from on Gilligan's Island.

 

[ZouPrime]

Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Robert Ludlum.... These authors are or used to be very popular, but nobody would even claim they are literacy masters or great english writers. People read their books because they are entertaining, and because their writing skills are acceptable.

Brown writing skill isn't acceptable, it's downright bad, it's horrible. All his books are always the same, with the same plot structure, the same characters always coming back with different names. His research skills are absolutely atrocious, it's like he doesn't do any real research at all and instead skim over topics, only keeping "cool" stuff he barely understand. And it goes beyond Da Vincy Code, all his books have these problems.

It's not that he's popular, there are plenty of popular authors who aren't has criticized. It's just that he doesn't even have the minimal talent normally required for the job. The only reason why he is popular is because of the reaction the Da Vincy Code provoked - remove that, and nobody would have ever heard of him. He would have been just another failed author.

 

[ZouPrime]

At one point in the Code, one of the character who is a cryptographer take 2 pages to find out that a particular cryptic message is in fact simply written backward. Not only such a trick is immediately obvious to anyone with a IQ in the three digits, but to even suggest that a crytographer would miss something like that?

 

[athon]

Yet I'd imagine that most people would judge a movie based on a comic book by it's own merits which is precisely what didn't happen with movies based on Dan Brown's work.

Note I haven't commented at all on the movies. I haven't seen them, and I do admit it's because I hated the books. But I can't judge something I haven't seen.

However I wonder how much of this is due to people nitpicking them. I mean, exactly how well researched were a lot of works that people deem "classics."

A bit of a 'tu quoque' argument, but ok.

I'll tell you what I've told my writing students - good writers are like good gamblers. You have to know what the odds are that your readers will care about any transgressions you make. For instance, if you're writing a fantasy book, how many people would care if you had a character wear chain armour without padding underneath? Then you have to ask yourself if you're happy with that percentage.

Dan Brown rolled that dice and came up fine. Most people obviously don't care about the gaping transgressions. For me, they went beyond what I would normally tolerate. If it happened with a 'classic', I'd probably give you the same answer. You haven't provided any particular examples, so this is all hypothetical. However if they grated enough for me to hate the writing, you'd get the same response from me.

Interesting points. Do you think Pollock was a genuine artist or a "drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit?" If he is determined to not be genuine should galleries be shamed into not exhibiting his work and his fans shunned and pelted with rotting vegetable matter?

Thanks to the demarcation problem of art, there is no such thing as a 'genuine artist'. One man's art is another man's garbage.

Personally, Pollock's work doesn't connect with me. Since I define art as the intentional use of a medium to communicate a concept or emotion, he was unsuccessful in my case. Others might not define it that way and see something different in it.

But the question is, did he know what he was doing? Was it skill or blind luck? Did his choice of medium and style successfully communicate something to others? Honestly I don't know, so can't comment.

I'm getting the feeling you're taking this rather personally, however. As if it comments on you. Your tastes are your tastes - if his work appeals to you, then great. I don't have to understand it.

I thought the use of the word 'hate' was something of an amusing hyperbole, but now I see you've taken it quite literally. I don't think anybody here 'hates' Dan Brown in a personal sense that would see them want to 'throw rotten vegetables' at his readers. What nonsense. For myself, I find it frustrating and bewildering that an unskilled writer can gain such popularity. It just emphasises a rather depressing social fact - there could well be very little correlation between the skill of a writer to effectively communicate and the reach of their work.

Athon

 

[quadraginta]

Interesting points. Do you think Pollock was a genuine artist or a "drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit?"

A great artist, but you must see the originals.

Who painted those?

 

[stilicho]

Okay, confession. I haven't read any of his books but I have seen both movies to date and really liked them both. However I see an awful lot of animus on here towards both the books and the films and I can't help wondering if this might be hate for one bleeding over into the other. If so, what is the reason for this hate? I found the films to be engaging, visually beautiful with great kinetic energy so the books must be truly horrible if someone lets that taint their experience of them so much. But the books are popular and I know several people who have read them that really liked them.

So what gives?

I don't dislike Dan Brown and I've only read the Da Vinci Code (the illustrated version) but haven't seen the movies, although I have seen National Treasure, which is something along the same lines.

The book would be something I'd recommend for a teenaged reader since the plot has about the same pacing and much in common with a Hardy Boys mystery or even a Tintin story. The whole adventure takes one day for the sleuth and his accomplice to wrap up although the clues are obvious only to them. The illustrated version had a lot of nice maps and interiors that might be interesting to anyone unfamiliar with the artworks or landmarks.

I haven't read all the comments here but it appears some of the issues are with practically irrelevant details that, had they been more accurate, wouldn't have changed the pacing of the novel. Brown found a topic of general interest and wrote about it.

Like you, I don't understand the hostility against him.

 

[MikeSun5]

However I wonder how much of this is due to people nitpicking them. I mean, exactly how well researched were a lot of works that people deem "classics."

I could nitpick Brown's writing style all day. Also, I thought his books seemed to just keep repeating the same formula:
1. Mystery identified
2. Expert introduced
3. Expert "explains" something
4. Mystery solved
While reading Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code, I did think they'd make better movies than novels.

Anyway, the marketing campaign for The Da Vinci Code was simply amazing. The fact that Brown intentionally blurred the line between fiction and non-fiction to sell books worked better than anyone thought it would, and of course pissed off history buffs everywhere.

Do you think Pollock was a genuine artist or a "drunk who's managed to somehow land a king hit?"

Pollock was a "genuine artist" in that he put paint on canvas... but like all modern artists, his "greatness" was determined by gallery owners. To quote one of my favorite real artists, Bansky:

The Art we look at is made by only a select few. A small group create, promote, purchase, exhibit and decide the success of Art. Only a few hundred people in the world have any real say. When you go to an Art gallery you are simply a tourist looking at the trophy cabinet of a few millionaires.

...but I digress. The only people who really have reasons to hate Dan Brown and his "research" are Biblical/Renaissance historians. They got the crap end of the stick on this one.