The Works of Dan Brown

[thingamajig]

That's what killed me...was the writing.

I was listening to a story on NPR this morning about the Catholic Church's response to the movie and the book. All these people were talking so seriously about it, about the effect it might have on people's faith or view of the Church. And all I could think was, "But it's so bad! How can you all be taking it so seriously! 'Inconceivable!!' 'Harrison Ford in Harris tweed'! Are you kidding me?"

[Deleted]

thingamajig said:

That's what killed me...was the writing.

I was listening to a story on NPR this morning about the Catholic Church's response to the movie and the book. All these people were talking so seriously about it, about the effect it might have on people's faith or view of the Church. And all I could think was, "But it's so bad! How can you all be taking it so seriously! 'Inconceivable!!' 'Harrison Ford in Harris tweed'! Are you kidding me?"

I am Catholic and some us were discussing this book and film with our Pastor and even he said he enjoyed the book and will be seeing the film. I will say that while I think there is some overreacting on the part of the Church, there is some validity to their claims. I was on a couple other boards and there were long discussions over how they saw the Opus Dei sect of the Church. Most of them since they were not Catholic had never heard of Opus Dei and were basing all of their interpretations on the books description. A few people tried to explain the real Opus Dei and they were argued with vehemently. So again while I agree the Church is freaking about next to nothing, there is some albeit little truth to their paranoia.

[Deleted]

/start rant

About 15 years ago or so I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail on a looong airplane ride (didn't finish it... no flight is that long). While reading it, I got increasingly incensed at the fake scientific method and "logic" the writers employed. Stuff like "see how this item written in 1826 resembles this one from 1310... so it's all true! two sources confirm it!" while in reality, it seems more likely that what was written in 1800s copied what was written in 1300s. And then the big conclusion: Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene and he didn't even die on the cross but sailed off to France and started a line of kings. I was like... err... oookaaay.

Then, last year, I finally read DaVinci Code and hell, it's the same story! Except written as crappy fiction with bad bad bad dialogue. And oh, Jesus did die on the cross after having a family. *sigh* I sat there like "oh, am I supposed to be shocked now?"

There are so many historical and factual inaccuracies in the book that it makes me want to rip and smash things (preferably the book itself). There are places described in Paris that are totally not like that in reality (the church where the nun gets killed, some bridge and so on). TONS of stuff completely made up. Now, this isn't really a problem when it's a work of fiction of course, but the fact that so many people seem to think Dan B knows of what he speaks is frikking annoying. He's a bad writer and his research sucks.

Elaine Pagels is a better read when it comes to the religious aspects and Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum beats Dan Brown hands down when it comes to suspense and brains (thought not in being a fast and easy read). His take on what might happen when you make up a fake history to fit into real history is a lot creepier and mindbending.

/end rant

ETA that because DaVinci Code is such an easy read, I have had some really interesting discussions because of that book. I just wish he wasn't taken as an authority on the subject he writes about, because he's got his facts wrong so often.

[Deleted]

Exactly my problem with Holy Blood Holy Grail! Fantastic idea but too much assuming and leaps of logic to ever prove anything. And I don't see how Dan Brown can say that he didn't get the idea for DVC from Holy Blood.

I did find DVC entertaining, but "life changing" - no, 'fraid not.

[Deleted]

Yes, my favourite comeback for people telling me how wonderful DVC is: "Have you read Foucault's Pendulum?"

I'm really quite surprised that Dan Brown wasn't accused of copying Umberto Eco, as DVC seemed much more of a rip-off of "Pendulum" then "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - only without the awesome twist that "Pendulum" had.

[emersende]

mimmilina said:

Elaine Pagels is a better read when it comes to the religious aspects and Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum beats Dan Brown hands down when it comes to suspense and brains (thought not in being a fast and easy read). His take on what might happen when you make up a fake history to fit into real history is a lot creepier and mindbending.

Because of this comment, I had to go read Foucault's Pendulum again, but this time I understood it! The "fake history" thing is especially interesting because I found out recently that Pierre Plantard, one of the guys who came up with the Priory of Sion, linked the organization in some way to a financial scandal in 1993 and got called into court about it.

I have a question. I asked my mother and she wasn't able to answer it, so I thought I'd try here. I gather that, at the end of the book, Robert Langdon goes to kneel at the grave of Mary Magdelen. If this is true, then my question is, why do this? If Jesus is just a regular guy, then Mary Magdelen is just a regular woman, so what's the point?

[lallybroch]

emersende said:

I have a question. I asked my mother and she wasn't able to answer it, so I thought I'd try here. I gather that, at the end of the book, Robert Langdon goes to kneel at the grave of Mary Magdelen. If this is true, then my question is, why do this? If Jesus is just a regular guy, then Mary Magdelen is just a regular woman, so what's the point?

Wasn't Langdon *paying his respects to the whole sacred feminine concept? And to the fact that she had been maligned throughout history.* I think it was more a matter of reverence than outright worship.

I read the first half and the last two chapters or so of Deception Point and it seems that Dan Brown can really only write one story, though with cosmetic changes like making the Beautiful Expert Mary Sue the protagonist instead of the Studly Nerd Cipher (and her father is alive, but there are still issues), and the conspiracy is based in science instead of religion. This was written before he had mastered the concept of three-page chapters, but the cliffhangers were in abundance. It's like he is getting worse as a writer with time, or maybe it's just laziness.

[emersende]

lallybroch said:

Wasn't Langdon *paying his respects to the whole sacred feminine concept? And to the fact that she had been maligned throughout history.* I think it was more a matter of reverence than outright worship.

Ah, okay, thanks.

[jennipoo]

thingamajig said:

That's what killed me...was the writing.

I was listening to a story on NPR this morning about the Catholic Church's response to the movie and the book. All these people were talking so seriously about it, about the effect it might have on people's faith or view of the Church. And all I could think was, "But it's so bad! How can you all be taking it so seriously! 'Inconceivable!!' 'Harrison Ford in Harris tweed'! Are you kidding me?"

I really didn't like the writing either, but the "Harrison Ford....Harris tweed" was meant to be cheesy - it was part of a magazine article on Langdon. In the book, Langdon was embarrassed by it.

Also, I don't get why the Opus Dei would be offended at how they were portrayed. At the end of the book, it spells out that the monk and bishop were misguided and basically not representative of Opus Dei.

[raqs]

Even though it was an awful book, I think if done well it could be an OK movie. The book is written like a screenplay to me, and seems to have been written with a movie-deal in mind. Of course, this method doesn't lend itself to a good read in the slightest.

Oh my god. I just read Angels & Demons and this is what I was mumbling to myself the whole freaking time throughout that pile of stupidity. It's not a book, it's a bloody screenplay.

I haven't yet read DVC (yes, I'm the last person on earth who hasn't) or seen the movie, but if A&D is indicative of Dan Brown's writing style, then all I can say is Ack! It's a shame though, because a pretty good novel could - in some other writer's hands - have sprung from his ideas/plot/theories. It just appears to me that he can't write very well. Can you imagine Stephen King with this material? It would be stunning. And I say this not as a blind SK fanatic, but as someone who can appreciate that way he can write very engaging narrative. Not many (good or bad) writers have that knack. Sadly, even Grisham is more enjoyable than Brown.

And having griped about him I'm off to read both Digital Fortress and DVC. Because I'm easy like that. Plus I want to see how far-reaching his awfulness is.

I love to read trash, along with everything else-- but that's the kicker-- it hs to be READABLE.

I agree! See: Marion Keyes and Jilly Cooper.

And we must solemnly promise not to mention Umberto Eco's name in this thread again. Poor Umberto... being mentioned in the same space as Dan Brown.