Dan Brown's Novels

[MeadowForest]

Has anyone read any of Dan Brown's books? What do you think?

I came to his books later than other people and have now read them all. Although they do follow very similar patterns I have found them all rather enjoyable to read. However his recent book, Inferno, seemed to be a little lacklustre compared with the others.

I won't say to much more on the subject at the moment in case no one replies.

[solicitr]

Historically, they're codswallop, much of it entirely (and arguably deliberately) counterfactual.

[Gungnir]

Historically, they're codswallop, much of it entirely (and arguably deliberately) counterfactual.

And not even well-written codswallop. Below-average pot-boilers.

[IrisBrandybuck]

I found them entertaining. If you're willing to suspend disbelief, they can be fun.

I read The Davici Code just to find out what all the fuss was about and knowing that he plays fast and loose with the facts, I rather enjoyed myself. I recently listened to Angels and Demons on audio and found myself going to the Internet to look up the artwork he talked about. While I didn't see it as the book presented it, I still learned something.

MeadowForest, what have you liked about the books?

[MeadowForest]

They keep you wanting to turn the page! (And I don't mean to hurry up and finish the darn books. ) The book that got the pages turning most, was probably Deception Point.

I'm under no illusions about the fact he's not the best writer or his claims aren't so true, and that doesn't effect my enjoyment for what they are, just exciting fictional works. One can debate his theories about Leonardo's paintings and so on, yet his books are under fiction, so you don't have to get too serious about it all. The books can be samey in the way some characters behave and all that, but yeah, if it's keeping me interested, then never mind! One thing that bothers me more is that SLIGHT SPOILER the main character Robert seems to have some kind of relationship with every girl he has been on these 'adventures' with. Really? Again? And then they have disappeared from mention by the next book. Dan Brown seems to see them as standalone books, but it's not too unreasonable for the character Robert to see links in all these chases that are occurring: 'Ah, not another chase with my life being in danger!'.

[IrisBrandybuck]

Lol! I noticed the thing about the girls too. It's sort of like James Bond...a girl in every adventure.

I haven't read Deception Point yet...I have sort of been doing them hit and miss...I read DaVinci Code first, then saw the movie, then saw Angels and Demons, then listened to a more recent book (the name totally escapes me at the moment, the one about the Freemasons in DC) THEN listened to Angels and Demons...you get the idea. But you don't have to do them in any order. The new one is out and I've looked at it but haven't done anything with it yet.

For me it's a good enough story to escape with for a while, to take my mind off of things. And if I'm curious, I go and look things up and find out how much he played with something. The National Treasure movies are the same way for me. I know they're fitting things and omitting things to make the plot work, and I'm okay with that because I hope it will make some people go and actually look at these things and learn more about history that way.

What has been your favorite book?

[siddharth]

Historically, they're codswallop, much of it entirely (and arguably deliberately) counterfactual.

And not even well-written codswallop. Below-average pot-boilers.

I keep wondering why people forget to put an "imo" in their comments.

And if dislike it so much, why bring the hate in a discussion among the fans of the author mentioned?

Sorry, Emeff (I hope I can call you that? ) for the intrusion. I haven't read any of the books (but have seen Da Vinci Code which I liked) but those comments fired me up and I couldn't help it.

*lurk-mode re-activated*

[solicitr]

Historically, they're codswallop, much of it entirely (and arguably deliberately) counterfactual.

And not even well-written codswallop. Below-average pot-boilers.

I keep wondering why people forget to put an "imo" in their comments.

And if dislike it so much, why bring the hate in a discussion among the fans of the author mentioned?

Erm, the OP asked "What do you think?" And Brown's grievous historical errors are objective errors of fact, not "opinion."

[siddharth]

...

[siddharth]

"not
well written" and "below average pot-boilers" are opinions only, not
facts.

And the OP asked what do you think about the books. And you replied
about the historical inaccuracies and nothing else. Even a book with bad
inaccuracies can be entertaining. So we still don't know as of yet, if
you like anything about them or not. (which I think is the purpose of
such threads?)

[IrisBrandybuck]

I agree we have a right to say we don't like the books...there are many books I don't like.

It did appear that the statements were rather harsh...the unfortunate consequences of messageboards sometimes.

Sidd, you should read the book, there's more detail in it than in the movie, although I had a hard time reconciling the description of Sir Leigh Teabing with Ian McKellen.

[hamlet]

Historically, they're codswallop, much of it entirely (and arguably deliberately) counterfactual.

And not even well-written codswallop. Below-average pot-boilers.

I don't care that they're below average. Plenty of cruddy books are still entertaining.

My problem is that people believe in the garbage he writes, think it's historical fact. That drives me positively batty.

[MeadowForest]

Hey... no arguing on my thread! :p

My problem is that people believe in the garbage he writes, think it's historical fact. That drives me positively batty.

Some of the problem is that he does weave the story in a way that the new information the characters keep finding for, say, 'The Last Supper' painting, there's almost a plausibility to it -because of the deep way in which he explains it-. (I need to have more English lessons... I'm so bad at explaining my thoughts! ) I'll admit when I was reading The Da Vinci Code I was intrigued if the theories could be true.

Also his notes at the beginning, saying 'all these groups are real, yadda yadda' can be a little misleading for true differentiation between fact and fiction through the rest of the book.

[Dunthule]

I just started 'Inferno'. I'm hoping it's a fun thriller.

[MeadowForest]

^ I'll be interested to hear/read what you think. As I've probably already said, I didn't think it so 'thrilling' as the other books.

[Dunthule]

I'd agree. I enjoyed the plot twists, but your description as not as thrilling is spot on. Worth the read though.

[portia]

I got the impression of "codswollop" elsewhere, and that has kept me from the stories. But they were so widely read that I feel I have missed a cultural experience.
But I expect to keep missing it.

[IrisBrandybuck]

Sometimes you need to try something just to find out for yourself. For example, I intend to at least try Twilight some day, just to form my own opinion. I'm not expecting great literature when I do, though. And sometimes what some people this is great, for yourself you find it isn't. (Catcher in the Rye for me). Or vice versa.

[Frelga]

People whose intelligence and taste I value highly raved about Twilight to me. But I lasted about two pages before realizing that it just wasn't my thang.

The DaVinci Code is a silly, fun plot written in so-so prose with so-so characters. It's addictive, though. As for people who take it seriously, well, it's their own fault.

[solicitr]

Well, in one sense it's sort of like Robert Ludlum- silly, entertaining page-turners, and if there are people who are foolish enough to think real-world espionage is like that, well, somebody has to keep the outfits that make miracle weight-loss belts in business.

But for some reason there's something about the falsification of history that really rubs me the wrong way. Braveheart isn't any worse a movie, in fact a lot better, than [insert bad King Arthur movie here]; but I can't stand it because the "history" is such rubbish.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

But for some reason there's something about the falsification of history that really rubs me the wrong way. Braveheart isn't any worse a movie, in fact a lot better, than [insert bad King Arthur movie here]; but I can't stand it because the "history" is such rubbish.

Hollywood is no respecter of source material, whether it's Tolkien, Blind Harry or historical record. I'd make the same case for Braveheart (bums on seats, darling) as I would for PJ's films. Mel Gibson produced as well-crafted an action blockbuster (IMO) as PJ & Co. and it is a craft.

I read the two Robert Langdon publications when there was a big fuss about The Da Vinci Code being a massive bestseller. They're obviously codswallop (and I don't think Dan Brown would claim they're high literature), the equivalent of disposable Hollywood blockbusters. I was already familiar with Holy Blood, Holy Grail (also complete crap) and I didn't take the Frankensteinesque declaration of veracity seriously. My main gripe is a bit silly but some of the chapters were just a couple of sentences long. I know there's no minimum length for chapters but I did feel as if he'd got out of bed one morning with the intention of writing a chapter that day and just given up before breakfast. I also found the name Teabing tedious. It doesn't sound like any name (or even word) that has ever existed in English.

I think their appeals lies in the fact that, no matter what reading level you're at, you're always way ahead of the characters (not to mention the author).

[GlassHouse]

In the movies forum, there used to be a thread by someone (and I forget who at the moment and it's driving me crazy, senility is a real pain sometimes) on historical accuracy in the movies. She had a blog devoted to the same subject. I wish I could link to it because, not only was it interesting and informative, it was such a good place to vent about that.

But I never look for accuracy in anything in the movies. History, science, geography, anything. It seems like pure laziness more than anything else to me....and they wonder why people are so misinformed.
It was being a fan of hard science fiction that drove that hope right out of me. Any science fiction fan knows that they can't be bothered to get even the most basic terminology right. They're always saying galaxy when they mean universe - or the other way around. Or something equally annoying.


"It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."

Oh and Dan Brown is a surprisingly smart guy, he just writes bad novels.

[Úlairiii]

I read them like almost a decade ago, when I was pretty young, and enjoyed. Recently dipped into Inferno - utter *******!

[TheGreenWizard]

I've read The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. I really enjoyed The Da Vinci code. The factual inaccuracies don't really bother me considering I did not begin the books for information on the subject matter.

I didn't care for Angels and Demons as much. It's not that I thought the book a bad read, it was stil entertaining, it just didn't really suck me into the story as The Da Vinci code did. The thing I find most entertaining is how he involves real people places and events into the plot, even if they aren't written with complete historical accuracy. It is after all a book of fiction.

[GlassHouse]

Reading Dan Brown is like drinking cheap wine, you enjoy it for what it is.