Dan Brown: why the hate?

[timhau]

What irks me about Brown's books is not the sloppy writing or the convoluted plots, but the fake cleverness. Easy, turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy-the-ride reading is OK. Easy, turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy-the-ride reading that pretends to be smart and profound is irritating.

 

[poeatszeitgeist]

I know every era has its lamentations crying out over the alleged end of literature. However in the past, this is based on what's seen as the perversion of some vague purity in the 'spirit' of literature.

Ah, I see what you're saying, albeit a little too late. Rather, I thought your main concern was that "vague purity in the 'spirit' of literature.” Some poor reading comprehension on my part there. (Maybe you should be concerned about literacy!) Still, I feel that until I can get my grubby little hands on some of these works of popular fiction, I can't really comment on how low we've stooped as far as the competency of the popular writer.

The thing is, individuals (mostly women, admittedly) two centuries ago in America were picking up scandulous serialized novels (that were also incredibly hyped) for the same reason individuals pick up a Dan Browne book today - escapism through entertainment. This makes me have to wonder if these readers would have paid any more attention to Dan Browne's writing errors than the modern reader. My tentative guess is no.

 

[Lucian]

I haven't read anything by him so can't comment on his literary talents (or lack thereof). The only problem I have with him is that he ripped off the supposedly "nonfiction" book Holy Blood Holy Grail to write The DaVinci Code and got away with it despite a lawsuit by the authors of the original book. Don't get me wrong, Holy Blood Holy Grail was nonsense, but it was someone else's nonsense and they should have been properly acknowledged (winking in-joke references to the original authors in Brown's novel don't count).

Well, yes, he should have given proper credit in a foreword or an afterword, but to be fair (and I hate to be fair to Dan Brown) The Da Vinci Code is a novel. You don't have to cite sources for a novel.

 

[Travis]

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?

 

[arthwollipot]

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?

He used an ice bullet in Deception Point. But I think the main one is the whole "Jesus moves to France and has kids" bit.

 

[Lucian]

Give it a few years - you'll be thrilled when Asher brings you that very picture home from preschool.

And yes, I can see what you're saying, I think. Let me know if this is accurate. The poor execution of the writing - the grammar errors, the plot holes, poor pacing etc. - interrupt the flow of the novel, essentially startling you in such a way that you have to stop, take yourself out of the mindset of the book for a moment, and analyse what he was actually trying to say. You would prefer books that are well-executed enough that these cognitive interrupts do not happen. Does that sound about right?

This is the feeling I get when I encounter poor spelling and grammar - it interrupts me and makes me try and unravel what it's supposed to be saying. With correct spelling and grammar, these interrupts don't happen.

Athon has answered for himself, but in my experience, Brown's inelegancies didn't stop me that much. I don't think I was ever in "the mindset" of the novel. That would be giving it too much credit; however, I wasn't in a grading frenzy when I read The Da Vinci Code. Let me explain through an example. When I teach business writing, I have my students write a resume and letter of application responding to a real job advertisement. I have them submit the ad. with their work. In a grading frenzy, I have actually corrected stuff in the ads.

I wasn't in a grading frenzy when I read The Da Vinci Code. I lost half a day that I won't get back, but I just growled under my breath. It's just so poorly written and really, really dopey. I know it's a matter of taste, but I can't conceive of it being just good mindless entertainment.

I missed poeatszeitgeist's post the first time through, but I don't think it's the end of literature or a sign of anything. As a medievalist, I think that if it isn't at least 700 years old, it's just pop fiction and the jury's still out (JOKE, sort of). In Brown's case, though, it's just SO DUMB.

 

[lector]

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?

A friend of mine who minored in comparative religion tells me he gets important elements of the history of the Catholic Church wrong. I don't know the details.

He also, at the very least, fudges the details of Masonic practices.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

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?

Spoiler warning:

This is just to start with- Mr. Brown has a plot hole that reveals he knows zero about Catholicism. It is revealed that the Pope had a child through IVF who later himself became a priest and that, it is explained, is why the Pope promoted science.

Mr. Brown seems to believe that a priest can bypass his vows of chastity to have a biological child, using IVF. Hello? Catholics are not allowed to use IVF! If you are infertile or your spouse is, it is supposed to stay that way. Adoption is the only option. This goes for single people, married people, gay people, straight people, laypeople, clergy, one parent families, two parents families, anyone and everyone. I've heard of Catholics using it now, yes, and there is now even a church approved procedure, I've heard, but in the 1970s, when a 30ish guy must have been conceived? Of course not! And this is separate from their position on stem cell research. People think the Church is against IVF because of that. No, even apart from that.

 

[Lucian]

Spoiler warning:

This is just to start with- Mr. Brown has a plot hole that reveals he knows zero about Catholicism. It is revealed that the Pope had a child through IVF who later himself became a priest and that, it is explained, is why the Pope promoted science.

Mr. Brown seems to believe that a priest can bypass his vows of chastity to have a biological child, using IVF. Hello? Catholics are not allowed to use IVF! If you are infertile or your spouse is, it is supposed to stay that way. Adoption is the only option. This goes for single people, married people, gay people, straight people, laypeople, clergy, one parent families, two parents families, anyone and everyone. I've heard of Catholics using it now, yes, and there is now even a church approved procedure, I've heard, but in the 1970s, when a 30ish guy must have been conceived? Of course not! And this is separate from their position on stem cell research. People think the Church is against IVF because of that. No, even apart from that.

All I've read is The DaVinci Code. I bought it second hand, read it and thought, okay, I'm through. But in DVC he also got Catholicism and basic Christianity wrong.

I've mentioned this in another thread, so pardon me for being repetitive, but they decide that Jesus sired a child on Mary M. and therefore he isn't divine. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus' divinity hinges on his not being a father? I thought it was that he was the Son of God, the Word made flesh, the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and all that stuff. Sure, the not-a-virgin business will irk the Catholics and others, but it's not really the point of Christianity. Perhaps this is what annoys me most about Brown: it's so daft, it makes me feel as if I have to defend Christianity because he gets it so wrong. Grrrrrrrr! And then on the next page Mary M. is still the divine feminine, cuz she was the main squeeze of a guy who wasn't divine. Grrrrrr!

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

All I've read is The DaVinci Code. I bought it second hand, read it and thought, okay, I'm through. But in DVC he also got Catholicism and basic Christianity wrong.

I've mentioned this in another thread, so pardon me for being repetitive, but they decide that Jesus sired a child on Mary M. and therefore he isn't divine. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus' divinity hinges on his not being a father? I thought it was that he was the Son of God, the Word made flesh, the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and all that stuff. Sure, the not-a-virgin business will irk the Catholics and others, but it's not really the point of Christianity. Perhaps this is what annoys me most about Brown: it's so daft, it makes me feel as if I have to defend Christianity because he gets it so wrong. Grrrrrrrr! And then on the next page Mary M. is still the divine feminine, cuz she was the main squeeze of a guy who wasn't divine. Grrrrrr!

You are correct. However, the idea Jesus was married and fathered children is heresy. The Church certainly believes that the very idea is blasphemy. Which is why that Martin Scorsese film that showed Jesus dreaming of Mary M. and dreaming of having children with her was so controversial. It would go against Jesus' divinity in that the son of God would do something as earthly as marry and have sex.

 

[Fitter]

Umberto Eco did it earlier and much much much better.

 

[hgc]

Umberto Eco did it earlier and much much much better.

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

 

[Careyp74]

If you want a really good idea of how bad his writing is, read Digital Fortress. Count how many times you yell "I GET THE POINT, STOP EXPLAINING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND JUST MOVE ON ALREADY!!!!" and "well THAT was a big surprise"

 

[madmonk76]

Thay're so badly written. He doesn't use much complexity. You could drive a bus through the plotholes. This is about his writing style. It gets old fast. Very fast. Plus his stories are insane.

That says it all, really. I've read books aimed at preteen girls that are better written. I actually got angry trying to read The DaVinci Code. In the end I was just glad that I borrowed it and didn't pay for it.

 

[Arthur Denton]

Thay're so badly written. He doesn't use much complexity. You could drive a bus through the plotholes. This is about his writing style. It gets old fast. Very fast. Plus his stories are insane.

His only true merit is that he's got the public attention with those plot holes. I confess I enjoyed reading his book on Da Vinci conspiracies, but only because it is light reading. You don't really need to think about the book to get hooked to it. It takes you out easily, specially when you're saturated with reality.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Maybe the hate is for the fact he's sold lots of books and has movie deals when decent writers get hee-haw.

 

[madmonk76]

Maybe the hate is for the fact he's sold lots of books and has movie deals when decent writers get hee-haw.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find that quite annoying, yes.

 

[Damien Evans]

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?

That whole Priory Of Sion he keeps going on about?

It was a fraud invented by a frenchman in the 1950s.

 

[Travis]

Maybe the hate is for the fact he's sold lots of books and has movie deals when decent writers get hee-haw.

How do you account for the fact that the so-called "good" writers are ignored while this supposedly "bad" writer is what the public prefers?

Is good story telling purely in the eye of the beholder?

 

[Micromegas]

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?

All the mystical-schmistical stuff about the Jesus bloodline and secret societies aside, the claims Brown makes about the life and work of Leonardo DaVinci are, as they say, "not even wrong."

An art historian told my then-girlfriend that he read The DaVinci Code when it was first released and thought it was a rollicking read, but that it took outrageous liberties with DaVinci's actual paintings. He couldn't believe it when people eventually started claiming that Brown's book was historically accurate about DaVinci and his work.

It's been pretty solidly debunked that the effeminate figure at Jesus's right in The Last Supper is supposed to be Mary Magdalene. It's the apostle John, folks, always was and always will be. As for the speculation about the title of the Mona Lisa being a coded reference to Egyptian iconography, well, the painting didn't even get that title until a couple of hundred years after Leonardo was dead.

-Mike