Why are poeple against Dan Brown?

[godless dave]

At first I just thought he was bad writer, until I got to the part in The Da Vinci Code where a character said English was ideal for (something) because it was the European language with the least amount of Latin in it. Anyone who knows anything about the Indo-European languages and the history of English knows that's nonsense. Sloppy research is one thing, but that statement was just ridiculous.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I also hold him responsible (although I know it is not his fault) for the piles of copy cat books which every airport seems to think is the only thing anyone will ever want to read. Seems like every publisher in the world believes that having read one poorly written book about codes, conspiracy theories and religious secrets, I have some desire to repeat the experience.

 

[ingoa]

I'm hearing similar noises about the Open Day that's scheduled for 6 April!

(I live in Prévessin, btw)

Happy birthday, Malbui.

I lived a few years in Gex and later some years in St. Jean de Gonville.

If you want to go to the open day of CERN... Take a bike. The last one in which I participated had parking cars all over the place. St. Genis, Meyrin all full. No parking places to be found. Pure chaos, but quite a lot of fun.

 

[malbui]

Happy birthday, Malbui.

I lived a few years in Gex and later some years in St. Jean de Gonville.

If you want to go to the open day of CERN... Take a bike. The last one in which I participated had parking cars all over the place. St. Genis, Meyrin all full. No parking places to be found. Pure chaos, but quite a lot of fun.

Thanks. I'm going to go on foot - it's not far and the exercise will do me good!

 

[ZouPrime]

There's also something strange about a ciphering expert who can solve mysteries that have baffled the best minds of our species for centuries, and yet is completely dumbfounded when he encounters mirror writing.

Heh. Yes, this part cracked me up too. IIRC, the characters (including a professional crytographer!) take close to two pages before finally figuring out that the message is simply written backward. I remember it well because at first I didn't understand what they were arguing about and why they couldn't read the message. I had to reread the passage before finally figuring out that "mirroring" was the actual plot point. From an author who claim to have an interest in cryptography, that's pretty pathetic.

 

[RobRoy]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress. I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton: cardboard cut-out characters, easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys", fun, but not unexpected, twists, and an interesting premise that doesn't require much thought. General readers, like those who made Da Vinci such a hit, like their heroes and heroines simple, almost always right, underdogs who escape by their wits, and get the girl/guy.

It's nice and tidy for a world that almost never is.

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

 

[Retrograde]

Heh. Yes, this part cracked me up too. IIRC, the characters (including a professional crytographer!) take close to two pages before finally figuring out that the message is simply written backward.

I listened to a recorded version of The DaVinci Code (I like listening to them while doing repetitive, mindless jobs such as weeding) which made the puzzles *slightly* harder to decipher - i.e., 15 seconds instead of 5. When they got to the point where the super-intelligent cryptographer was trying to figure out the cryptext cylinder using the clue "ancient wisdom" I found myself shouting "it's your name, you ninny!". But for me all the book's credibility vanished in the Louvre scenes: how does one drive an 18-wheeler in Paris anyway, much less find the bathrooms in the Louvre?

I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton

There's brain candy and then there's brain candy. With only a finite amount of time I'd rather spend it reading the equivalent of a well-crafted dark chocolate truffle than a vending machine Hershey bar.

If you want a Leonardo Da Vinci conspiracy book that doesn't treat the reader as a backwards 12-year-old, I recommend The Secret Supper by Javier Sierra.

 

[RobRoy]

There's brain candy and then there's brain candy. With only a finite amount of time I'd rather spend it reading the equivalent of a well-crafted dark chocolate truffle than a vending machine Hershey bar.

You say dark chocolate truffle, and I say New York cheesecake with strawberry sauce. It all depends on how you like your brain candy.

I even sometimes like bad chinese food. I'm willing to slum it from time to time.

If you want a Leonardo Da Vinci conspiracy book that doesn't treat the reader as a backwards 12-year-old, I recommend The Secret Supper by Javier Sierra.

And yet most people read on a 6th-grade/12-year-old level.

I've heard of this novel but haven't read it. For my money, and my brain-candy, I feel I can safely digest both with equal gusto.

 

[sthomson]

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

That's a little presumptuous. Many people have already pointed out why they don't like him or his books. You disagree, and that's fine, but to imply we dislike him because we're jealous is a little weird.

It just seems silly to read Dan Brown when Pynchon did it better and smarter in The Crying of Lot 49.

 

[RobRoy]

That's a little presumptuous. Many people have already pointed out why they don't like him or his books. You disagree, and that's fine, but to imply we dislike him because we're jealous is a little weird.

Not at all. I didn't mean to imply jealousy, and I certainly didn't state it. Just that if Brown hadn't been as successful as he was, like say Da Vinci had done a modest trade, but remained mostly off the pop culture radar, he wouldnt have come under such scrutiny and then there wouldn't be so many folk "against" him for whatever reasons, real, justifiable, or not.

Makes him a nice, big, fat, rich, and deserving target. But all that stems from his success.

It just seems silly to read Dan Brown when Pynchon did it better and smarter in The Crying of Lot 49.

No offense if this isn't what you're saying, but isn't that presumptuous. Assuming someone's reasons for reading Brown are "silly" just because someone did the story better justice?

 

[sthomson]

Not at all. I didn't mean to imply jealousy, and I certainly didn't state it. Just that if Brown hadn't been as successful as he was, like say Da Vinci had done a modest trade, but remained mostly off the pop culture radar, he wouldnt have come under such scrutiny and then there wouldn't be so many folk "against" him for whatever reasons, real, justifiable, or not.

So you're saying that, if Mr. Brown hadn't been famous, then we wouldn't know who he was, so we couldn't dislike him?

Well...duh. But, that's not the reason we dislike him, which was the original question.

No offense if this isn't what you're saying, but isn't that presumptuous. Assuming someone's reasons for reading Brown are "silly" just because someone did the story better justice?

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, especially after it was so popular. For awhile there, 75% of people on any plane flight, who were reading, were reading that book*, even though it's not particularly good, and even though there are better examples of the genre that many people haven't read. To me, that's a bit silly - that such a stunted example of fiction became so tremendously popular, when more intriguing and captivating fiction often goes unnoticed.

So many people (including me) read it partly out of some feeling of obligation to pop culture. And, like I said, the only reason I finished it was so I could say, "Look! I read the whole thing! And I didn't like it!" I know there were others out there like me. And yes, I think that's one example of a silly reason to read a novel!

* Figure pulled from Maison Derriere

 

[Spindrift]

I read the DaVinci Code and thought, man the basic premise is pretty good but what awful execution. A couple things that stuck out to me were that an Englishman speaking French could fool a Frenchman. And that British police would follow the orders of a French police officer without any questions. It's been a while since I read it, but there were a bunch of things that while I was reading it, I was like, "wait that's wrong". I'd look it up and it was wrong.

Being a poor writer who sells a lot of books doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is that Brown is conning people. He is so disingenuous about the fact that most of the book is fictional based on nothing more than his imaginings. His contention that the book is based on fact is laughable. I'm surprised that he got the fact that Paris is in France correct.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress. I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton: cardboard cut-out characters, easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys", fun, but not unexpected, twists, and an interesting premise that doesn't require much thought. General readers, like those who made Da Vinci such a hit, like their heroes and heroines simple, almost always right, underdogs who escape by their wits, and get the girl/guy.

It's nice and tidy for a world that almost never is.

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[RobRoy]

So you're saying that, if Mr. Brown hadn't been famous, then we wouldn't know who he was, so we couldn't dislike him?

Well...duh. But, that's not the reason we dislike him, which was the original question.

No. My example provided for him to be successful, even famous and still not earn as much ire as he has. Mediocre books doing well is nothing new. Mediocre books doing through-the-roof stellar is. The OP didn't ask the "reason we dislike him". The OP asked, "[Dan Brown] writes fiction but [the attacks do] not seem to stem from the quality of the writing alone. What gives?"

The OP stated that it's not the quality of the writing, but for those who have expressed a dislike Brown, Da Vinci or both so far, they've almost exclusively focussed on the writing.

There are any number of published works that are whole orders of magnitude worse than Brown in their inability to research, convey character, deliver a plot, or provide a meaningful storyline to a reader. They don't receive the scrutiny of author and work to the same degree.

The only difference then is the level of success. It's because he was so successful that he painted a target, and so everything up to and including his mediocre writing has been attacked.

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, especially after it was so popular. For awhile there, 75% of people on any plane flight, who were reading, were reading that book*, even though it's not particularly good, and even though there are better examples of the genre that many people haven't read. To me, that's a bit silly - that such a stunted example of fiction became so tremendously popular, when more intriguing and captivating fiction often goes unnoticed.

Well, I don't want to get into a semantics argument over which part is the silliness. Suffice to say that I agree with your conclusing statement. It's unfortunate that better fiction is less or unnoticed than Brown . . . which, of course, feed back into my statement of why he is so attached: his level of success.

So many people (including me) read it partly out of some feeling of obligation to pop culture. And, like I said, the only reason I finished it was so I could say, "Look! I read the whole thing! And I didn't like it!" I know there were others out there like me. And yes, I think that's one example of a silly reason to read a novel!

Honestly, I don't. If you're going to get involved in the debate, you have to done the background research. I recall a brief argument I had with a college professor regarding the movie Forest Gump, and I cited a particular scene and quoted a line. His response was, "Well, Mr. M, I haven't actually seen the movie, so perhaps I should and we then we can discuss this." Yeah, he was silly.

So your reason seams perfectly sound . . . to me.

 

[athon]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress. I liked them because they're brain-candy, along the same lines of Michael Crichton: cardboard cut-out characters, easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys", fun, but not unexpected, twists, and an interesting premise that doesn't require much thought. General readers, like those who made Da Vinci such a hit, like their heroes and heroines simple, almost always right, underdogs who escape by their wits, and get the girl/guy.

It's nice and tidy for a world that almost never is.

But to answer the OP, I think people are "against" Brown because of his success. He is not a great writer or researcher, and yet he's published four books with a fifth on the way that will likely make him even more money. It's frustrating to think that someone of average talent has made a go where so many have struggled and even failed. It's nice to slap labels on him and dismiss him, even when the labels and dismissal are deserved.

I have nothing against 'brain candy' books. One of my favourites was an awful book called 'The Wolf's Hour', which had a werewolf running rampant against the Nazis. It was so awful, but I loved it anyway. The reason was that in itself it didn't pretend to be anything other than a bad action novel. It followed the formula well, didn't infodump and while the plot was simple and formulaic, it was still written in a style that didn't jar the mind.

Dan Brown does not do that. The formula and style are incongruent, feigning to be intellectual and mysterious while trying to subscribe to an action formula. That in itself is forgiveable, if not for the fact it is writing in way that smacks of the weakness a lot of young writers have, which is to overload it with research they've found interesting but has no direct relevance to the book.

We have a similar writer here in Oz named 'Matthew Reilly' who is just as abhorrent an author. I watched an interview with him once, and couldn't believe how seriously he took himself. He seriously thought his works were intellectually profound.

The point is, even brain candy should be written in a style that doesn't highlight the writer's arrogance, or display obvious ignorance on a topic.

Then again, as I used to tell the students in my writer's club - if only 5% of your readers will know you've rewritten science or history in contradiction of the facts, ask yourself if you're happy with that figure. Dan Brown, IMO, wasn't concerned. I would be, but then that reflects the sorts of books I like to read.

Athon

 

[athon]

If I were to be perfectly honest, I'm probably not all that annoyed at Brown. The only book I ever burned out of a desire to never have any other poor bastard suffer it was by a guy called 'Scott McBain', called 'Coins of Judas'. It was honestly really, really poorly written (I came close to burning a book called 'Scherherazade' by Anthony O'Neill, but that was because he cheated the ending something shocking). In neither case did it raise as much emotion as my distaste in Brown.

I think it's less because of his personal success, and more because it says something of the taste in literature that manages to catch a hype wave. I've read so many good books in my time which are worthy of praise. And then the people like 'Da Vinci Code' to the extent it becomes such a raging success? It hardly seems to be fair, or make sense.

Athon

 

[sthomson]

The OP stated that it's not the quality of the writing, but for those who have expressed a dislike Brown, Da Vinci or both so far, they've almost exclusively focussed on the writing.

Perhaps it's not our reasons that are faulty then, but the OP's question.

There are any number of published works that are whole orders of magnitude worse than Brown in their inability to research, convey character, deliver a plot, or provide a meaningful storyline to a reader. They don't receive the scrutiny of author and work to the same degree.

Because, like many here have pointed out, those books don't pretend to be anything other than pure fiction. Do you think The DaVinci Code would have been so famous if he hadn't implied that some of it was true?

The only difference then is the level of success. It's because he was so successful that he painted a target, and so everything up to and including his mediocre writing has been attacked.

I would not say his fame was the cause. Rather, his fame and other's dislike of his books stem from the same source - his irritating publicity campaign, maybe?

If you're going to get involved in the debate, you have to done the background research.

Ah, this is a sort of fallacy I hear often, but it doesn't hold much water with me. It seems to say that we shouldn't form a judgement about anything before we finish every single part of it. Were the last 20 pages of The DaVinci Code any more suited to my tastes than the first 20? Isn't the purpose of book reviews to inform me of whether or not I'll like a certain novel before I waste 3 hours on it?

 

[timhau]

We have a similar writer here in Oz named 'Matthew Reilly' who is just as abhorrent an author. I watched an interview with him once, and couldn't believe how seriously he took himself. He seriously thought his works were intellectually profound.

Oh, come on; he's way worse than Brown. I've read Temple by Mr. Reilly, and it was hands down the worst book I've ever read. He writes like a ten-year-old in a sugar rush, and the result makes James Patterson sound like Shakespeare. The plot is inane beyond belief. Generally, if a thriller has a twist where the protagonist is saved totally unmotivated miraculous event right out of the blue, it counts as a strike against the book; this one has several -- per chapter.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I liked The Da Vinci Code and I've read other Brown efforts Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress.

I bought two of his books at the same time having read none before (must have been some form of deal). Read Da Vinci code, thought it was acceptable holiday/airport reading as brain candy. Started the other (think it was Angels & Demons) and got an overwhelming feeling of having already read it. Others have said the same thing - once you have read one Dan Brown book you have read them all and whatever one you read first is the one you will identify as the best.

 

[RobRoy]

Perhaps it's not our reasons that are faulty then, but the OP's question.

Fair enough. The thread title and the OP do seem to be asking different questions.

Because, like many here have pointed out, those books don't pretend to be anything other than pure fiction. Do you think The DaVinci Code would have been so famous if he hadn't implied that some of it was true?

That's hard to say. The books are easily accessible to the masses, and the masses literary tastes have never been complicated. The story was straight-forward, and Brown not only holds his reader's hand, but practically drags the reader from concept to conclusion so that you never have to wonder if you've missed something or work hard to figure it out. The "twist" at the end, while not particularly new, was not really in the pop-culture conscious, and has provided interesting fodder for any number of water cooler discussions.

So removing Brown's opening statement of factual accuracy, and the publicity campaign surrounding that statement, and then replacing it with a more honest approach, I'd say that Brown would be less well read, but only marginally. Instead of selling 60 million copies, he may have only sold 30 or 40 million. Instead of being at the New York Times Top Ten list for 120 weeks, he might have only been there for 80 or 90 weeks.

I would not say his fame was the cause. Rather, his fame and other's dislike of his books stem from the same source - his irritating publicity campaign, maybe?

I can agree with this.

Ah, this is a sort of fallacy I hear often, but it doesn't hold much water with me. It seems to say that we shouldn't form a judgement about anything before we finish every single part of it. Were the last 20 pages of The DaVinci Code any more suited to my tastes than the first 20? Isn't the purpose of book reviews to inform me of whether or not I'll like a certain novel before I waste 3 hours on it?

Sorry, I still don't think this is a fallacy. I could go on about Quintillion's "good man, speaking well", but I'll stop trying to defend you to yourself.

For me, I prefer to not speak on the subject of a book's apparent worth if I haven't read it, and I prefer the same of anyone else who enters such a discussion. To that end, I appreciate that you went through the motions of completing Da Vinci even if you found it silly from start to finish.