• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dan Brown

HarryKeogh

Unregistered
H
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
11,319
Why does Dan Brown write in the forward to his books how pretty much everything presented in his novels are factual and accurate (when clearly they are not) and other authors of popular fiction like John Grisham will state how they had to make up stuff (change laws, places, etc) to suit the plot?

What the hell is wrong with Dan Brown?



this post written after I just finished Angels and Demons...reading it with my jaw dropped because of the sloppiness of it all and angry at myself for not being able to put the book down (because it's kind of fun to root for the blowing up of the Vatican.)
 
He wanted to sell 50 million books in three years.

Worked, too.

I may be among the few on this board who actually enjoyed The DaVinci Code.

I thought it was factually rotten and the foreword unforgivable and from a technical standpoint the writing fairly poor.

But it was fun.

Same things for Angels and Demons but to a lesser degree.
 
I enjoyed the DaVinci Code. It's a good ariplane book. I'd previously read (about 10 years previous, that is) "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" so I was alreay familar with the concept. I didn't like that, when I got around to reading A&Ds that I found out that he'd basically written the same book twice.

Eh. so he's a hack writer...so what? Does it get you through that three hour layover in Philadelphia?
 
We're obviously twins. I had read Holy Blood Holy Grail also about ten years previously.

And I also thought Angels & Demons was in effect the same as The DaVinci Code but not as well done. Remember, though, that A&D was written first--it was rereleased after the success of DaVinci.

And who are all you mutants who can read novels in three hours? I'm an excellent reader, but my speed is, at best, average.
 
I had the misfortune of reading "Deception Point" the other day. It was nauseating.
 
Garrette said:
We're obviously twins. I had read Holy Blood Holy Grail also about ten years previously.

And I also thought Angels & Demons was in effect the same as The DaVinci Code but not as well done. Remember, though, that A&D was written first--it was rereleased after the success of DaVinci.

And who are all you mutants who can read novels in three hours? I'm an excellent reader, but my speed is, at best, average.
Click to expand...
Well, once you skip over all the woo in the book, it's about three hours to read all the intoduction, conclusion...ok, I take it back, take out all the woo and it'll take you three minutes to read DaVinci and that includes the time to walk over to the bookshelf to pick it up
 
I haven't read any of his books. I guess I should if I want to know what you guys are talking about...:)
 
Does anyone else find it odd that Dan Brown would claim that every single "fact" in his book is correct, and yet the darned title has a glaring factual error? It ought to be "The Leonardo Code". da Vinci was what he was called, but it wasn't his name. When the author of book doesn't even take care to keep his titles error free, I start to wonder.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Does anyone else find it odd that Dan Brown would claim that every single "fact" in his book is correct, and yet the darned title has a glaring factual error? It ought to be "The Leonardo Code". da Vinci was what he was called, but it wasn't his name. When the author of book doesn't even take care to keep his titles error free, I start to wonder.
Click to expand...
MEH! It's his PR guy telling him to do that. It make for contraversey, which sells books. So does misspellings....
 
I really liked the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Digital Fortress was good. Deception point was alright, but there was a mistake in it that don't know how he managed to make it. He specifically mentions the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter, which he must have done some research on as it's not a name you pick out of the air or that's bandied around a lot, and even describes its mast mounted sight, but then later on he states that the laser beam is coming from the nose of the helicopter. I'm confused because the laser is mounted in the mast sight, so why did he not know this after doing research on the helicopter? It's a picky minor point I know, but just strikes me as strange.

oh58_2.jpg
 
I quite enjoyed DVC actually, even though the bad guy turns out to be like any other American blockbuster bad guy: English
 
Johnny Pixels said:
I really liked the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Digital Fortress was good. Deception point was alright, but there was a mistake in it that don't know how he managed to make it. He specifically mentions the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter, which he must have done some research on as it's not a name you pick out of the air or that's bandied around a lot, and even describes its mast mounted sight, but then later on he states that the laser beam is coming from the nose of the helicopter. I'm confused because the laser is mounted in the mast sight, so why did he not know this after doing research on the helicopter? It's a picky minor point I know, but just strikes me as strange.
Click to expand...

Never read the book, Johnny, but I have a hunch that he confused it with the AH-64 Apache, which does have the laser beam coming from the nose of the aircraft. IMHO.
 
I read Holy Blood Holy Grail, or rather, 1 line of every 3 more or less. It was woo fun.

Then I played Gabriel Knight 3. Much more fun.

I'm not really interested in revisiting the d*mned Rennes-le-Château mystery for a 3rd time, so I'll pass on the DaVinci code. Maybe I'll borrow it one day. Anyone have a copy they don't care about?
 
Hutch said:
Never read the book, Johnny, but I have a hunch that he confused it with the AH-64 Apache, which does have the laser beam coming from the nose of the aircraft. IMHO.
Click to expand...

Whoah, I seem to have made a huge mistake. Just checked the book and it doesn't mention the laser coming from the nose. I must have seen that somewhere else. My apologies. I was so sure too, it's gonna annoy me til I find out what I was thinking of.
 
The DaVinci Code used every plot device in the pulp thriller writer's arsenal. I just felt I was reading something incredibly silly.

The big groaner for me was the multilayered meanings of words and symbols. After a while I thought I was reading stuff into everything. I even felt sympathy for Opus Dei and the Roman Catholic Church afterwards for the portrayal made in the book.

It's pulp fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom