Dan Brown - Inferno

[jond]

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

Sorry!

 

[catsmate]

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.

And, except for the insertion of Flashman, Fraser is generally far more accurate in his portrayal of history.

 

[angrysoba]

And, except for the insertion of Flashman, Fraser is generally far more accurate in his portrayal of history.

That's no doubt true. But I am just pointing out that if the books are good enough/entertaining enough or anything else enough then historical inaccuracies are hardly likely to bother me.

But Dan Brown... ?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

Yes, exactly the same thing except not at all.

 

[ddt]

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?

There's nothing wrong with making a fictional story. And of course it deviates somewhere from history. Frederick Forsyth invented an attempted assassination on De Gaulle, and a Nazi organization that helped escape Nazis to South America. Umberto Eco invented an abbey and a dispute between two factions in the RCC, to name a couple of things. However, the background to their stories is wholly believable. Dan Brown doesn't even do his basic fact checking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaccuracies_in_The_Da_Vinci_Code:

Several claims about the Church of Saint-Sulpice in Paris are disputed. While there is a brass line running north-south through the church, it is not a part of the Paris Meridian.
[...]
The reference to Paris having been founded by the Merovingians (Chapter 55) is false; in fact, the city was settled by Gauls by the 3rd century BC.

IIRC, there's also mention of a car chase that took an hour but actually was between two places less than half a mile away. If you're too cheap to buy a simple map of Paris (say, Michelin map nr. 10, like all Michelin maps it uses French meridians ) to check your facts then I won't even start to think about the less obvious stuff. And let's not even get into the cryptographic stuff...

There are scores of such simple factual errors in his books. Dickens could be excused for that as he lived in another time, but Dan Brown has the world at his fingertips, so to say, and could check them but doesn't.

ETA: and that's exacerbated by the fact that he inserts a preface in which he claims that the whole historical background is true.

no-one knows the real reason why the Knights Templar were slaughtered.

The French king was heavily indebted - to them. Getting rid of them was the simplest way to get rid of his debt.

 

[catsmate]

There's nothing wrong with making a fictional story. And of course it deviates somewhere from history. Frederick Forsyth invented an attempted assassination on De Gaulle, and a Nazi organization that helped escape Nazis to South America.

Nitpick: ODESSA, in the sense of a clandestine mutual aid group of former SS and Nazi members, is generally held to be a real organisation though far smaller, less ambitious, less cohesive/organised and less resourced that it is portrayed.
Also there were numerous attempts on De Gaulle, one more by the OAS was a plausible insertion into history. Unlike Dan Brown's nonsense.

There are scores of such simple factual errors in his books. Dickens could be excused for that as he lived in another time, but Dan Brown has the world at his fingertips, so to say, and could check them but doesn't.

ETA: and that's exacerbated by the fact that he inserts a preface in which he claims that the whole historical background is true.

Exactly.

The French king was heavily indebted - to them. Getting rid of them was the simplest way to get rid of his debt.

Follow the money.............

 

[ddt]

Nitpick: ODESSA, in the sense of a clandestine mutual aid group of former SS and Nazi members, is generally held to be a real organisation though far smaller, less ambitious, less cohesive/organised and less resourced that it is portrayed.
Also there were numerous attempts on De Gaulle, one more by the OAS was a plausible insertion into history. Unlike Dan Brown's nonsense.

Which is exactly why I mentioned those two Forsyth stories. The Jackal even begins with another, failed, attempt at De Gaulle's life. It's entirely believable that the OAS leadership would have decided to hire a professional after that. Same for ODESSA, it's entirely believable that such an organization would have been set up; I was not aware that it is was verified to have existed.

And it goes to show that you don't have to perverse swaths of history to make an exciting thriller.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So of course after the court case we now know that Dan Brown did NOT happen to read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail before coincidently reaching all the same conclusions as that (actually more entertaining if you treat it as swash buckling fiction) book.

Might I be the first to express my interest in how awesome/terrible the resulting book and movie would be if he also "did NOT happen to" read The Jesus Papers?

 

[hgc]

There are scores of such simple factual errors in his books. Dickens could be excused for that as he lived in another time, but Dan Brown has the world at his fingertips, so to say, and could check them but doesn't.

You have to think of Dan Brown in the same terms you would think of movie producers. What matters: Marketability. What doesn't matter: All of your complaints about veritableness, quality, literature. This is a product, not an art project. You are defaming Mr. Brown's product, and may be subject to punitive action. Beware.

 

[Susheel]

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

If i remember right there was also "Lesbian" and "Spank" in the title.

 

[Morrigan]

I never read any of his books, and I'm sure they're terrible (if these parodies are any indication, ouch) but I thought he seemed like a cool dude on Colbert.

 

[smartcooky]

I never read any of his books, and I'm sure they're terrible (if these parodies are any indication, ouch) but I thought he seemed like a cool dude on Colbert.

Cool dudeness does not a writer make... apparently

 

[kajata]

People still read Dan Brown books

I was on Match.com in the early 2000's and I remember pretty much every person's profile had "The DaVinci Code" down as their favorite book.

That was my clue not to contact that person. Unless they were somewhat cute, desperate and/or breathing.

 

[smartcooky]

So of course after the court case we now know that Dan Brown did NOT happen to read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

I read that book.

IMO, while the book seemed to hang together well, some of the conclusions they drew were very far-fetched, and some of the links they made between separate historical characters were extreme examples of drawing a long bow.

Then, of course, the main core of much of the material in the book, the Prieure Documents have since been shown to be almost certainly false, and the Priory of Sion, while it does exist, is not the very old and large organisation it pretends to be, nor does it appear to be connected in any way with the Order of Sion (or Abbey of Sion) that existed in the 12th century as the book suggests.

As speculative non-fiction it was quite an enjoyable (if convoluted) read, but I think too much emphasis was placed on the "speculative" part, and not enough on the "non-fiction" part.

 

[desertgal]

You are defaming Mr. Brown's product, and may be subject to punitive action. Beware.

Like...forcing us to read Inferno?

Egads.

 

[timhau]

Like...forcing us to read Inferno?

Egads.

Cruel and unusual.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I have never read any of this books.

You really can't make informed comment until you have read at least one of his books.

And I mean really read it - don't just skim through to the 'good' bits - read every word, visualize it and savor the atmosphere. Only then will you be able to fully appreciate his style. Only then will you understand how his books have managed to sell over 200 million copies, and why he was named one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by TIME Magazine.

Determine for yourself whether the critics are right, or just jealous that Dan Brown is rich and famous while they are not. You may be surprised to find that he is not as bad as they are saying. I wouldn't say that Dan Brown is a literary giant - more a bit of a hack - but so are many other popular writers. He is certainly not the worst. And despite what they say, his books are quite readable.

Kicking up all this fuss about Brown and his books only serves to ensure that they get presented to a much wider audience.

They say all publicity is good publicity, but I suspect that quite a few potential readers may be put off by bad reviews and people taking the piss out of his writing style. But don't you be put off by the negativity, go out and get yourself a copy of one Dan Brown's books, read it and find out what all the fuss is about.

If you don't want follow the crowd then read the Dan Brown title that people aren't constantly taking the piss out of:- Deception Point. No religious stuff to get upset about, plot twists that you won't figure out in advance unless you read it very carefully (or cheat), and a believable story.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I wouldn't say that Dan Brown is a literary giant - more a bit of a hack - but so are many other popular writers. He is certainly not the worst.

Popularity is unconnected to how good / worthy of a chance/ enjoyable a book is.

He is a better writer than I or many armchair critics could be. But he is still not a good enough writer to recommend. Popularity just isn't a measure of how much I enjoyed his work. Any number of people could enjoy his work, or Tom Clancy, or Maeve Binchly. They could show me reasons why they savoured the style, found deep meaning in the words, found some kind of petry there. Whatever.

Some writers still do nothing for me. Worse some cause me displeasure to read. While some equally "bad" books will have a quality of "meh" with out ever gaining any of that fame. (Or will cause far greater pleasure when I read them).

 

[Aepervius]

You have to think of Dan Brown in the same terms you would think of movie producers. What matters: Marketability. What doesn't matter: All of your complaints about veritableness, quality, literature. This is a product, not an art project. You are defaming Mr. Brown's product, and may be subject to punitive action. Beware.

Indeed Dan brown is "McDonald" of litterature.

It is easy to consume, it is easy to pretend it is real food (), etc...

But also so is this pink erotic litterature full of throbing cheaply written for young (and older) lady.

Now excuse us not liking mcdonald litterature.

 

[timhau]

I wouldn't say that Dan Brown is a literary giant - more a bit of a hack - but so are many other popular writers. He is certainly not the worst.

Just out of interest: name one.

Angels and Demons was readable, The DaVinci Code is essentially the same plot in another setting. Having read The Lost Symbol, all I can say is that he shouldn't have abandoned that plot so rashly.