Like I said before, the fact that there is so much debate about the accuracy of what he wrote means that there must be something going on. Otherwise he wouldn't be under attack from so many people. As for me, I tend to side with the scholars and experts of history rather than with Brown. To each his own I guess.
What I wonder is, why these self-proclaimed so-called "scholars" are so interested in attacking a novel writer whose work sits in the fiction section of the book store. If the author of Jurassic Park told us that he based his dinosaurs on real dinosaurs, would the scientific scholars get in an uproar about the scientific inaccuracies of his book? (Would they do that if he said, "100% of my dinosaurs were based on real dinosaurs. So were the plants, and the concept of DNA. All of it was true..."? Would that give them the right to interpret that to mean that every word in his book was true, and therefore critically take the fictional book apart?) Honestly, I think these so-called "scholars" and "experts" are doing the same thing Dan Brown was doing: Selling books. By the way, ascent to "scholars" and "experts" doesn't prove the truthfulness of any specific claims made. That's a logical fallacy called "argument to authority." Charlie
First of all, there actually are biological inaccuracies in Jurassic Park which biologists have pointed out. I'm sure Crichton did his bit of studying, but if he had said something outrageous, no doubt that scientists would be attacking his novel as well. I fail to understand this. If he had said "100% of my dinosaurs..." then how does that mean every word is true? In this case, his only claim is that every biological fact he wrote about the dinosaurs is true, not every word. If Crichton had claimed that 99% of his research on dinosaurs was true and it actually wasn't, I'm sure there would be lot more controversy surrounding that book as well. I'm sure some scholars are trying to sell books. But also look at it from Brown's perspective. He is also trying to sell books. And what better way to sell than to cause controversy? There are so many controversial books on the bestseller lists that it's ridiculous. I'm not saying it proves it, but I think we can both agree that they are deemed as the authority on the matter. Therefore, they are many times more probable of being right than some random layman.
Exactly my point about Dan Brown. The background of the book (like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park) are real: the art really exists, the documents really exist, the locations really exist, the architecture really exists. You can't find any interviews where he says, "You know, Galileo really was the originator of the Illuminati. This is true, and it's also true that Jesus was married to Mary Magdaline." What you find is quotes, pretty much like, if Crichton said, "100% of my dinosaurs..." never claiming that every point of biology was real. As far as I'm concerned, "the matter" is not the matter of, for example, whether Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus or whether the character to Jesus' right in the Last Supper was John or Mary Magdalene. These people may or may not arguably be knowledgeable on those matters--I personally don't think they're provable things or things that anyone really knows for certain, so I question whether anyone could make such statements authoritatively. But that's irrelevant, for this reason: The "matter" is not the question of whether his fictional books are accurate, but the question of what Dan Brown is actually claiming is accurate or inaccurate. These people are not experts in knowing the mind of Dan Brown or interpreting the words of Dan Brown or his intent in his interviews or "Facts Page." If I want to know what Dan Brown is claiming, I'll defer to Dan Brown. No one is a better expert on what his claims are, then he himself, and I don't believe that Dan Brown ever claimed authoritatively, for example, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Nor did he say on his Facts Page, "Jesus was actually married to Mary Magdalene." That was part of his fiction. All he claimed was that, for example, the Last Supper exists, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene exists. Because vague statements about "the history being real" are extrapolated into "the interpretations of history are real" does not mean that Dan Brown's statements meant that. He never claimed the specific matters these authors debunk were true at all, unless you take words out of context and extrapolate their meaning, no matter how much these authors may arguably be experts on the specific things they're debunking. These authors have created a straw-man argument and then proceeded to, as they say in logic, knock down the straw man. When the authors spend chapters exploring the reasons they believe that Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene, they are attacking a claim that Dan Brown never, ever ever, said was true. They might as well be debunking the existence of Robert Langdon. The only moral I can derive from that story is this: If you want to sell books, write something controversial. I see no sin in selling books--hey, isn't that why we're all here? I don't even see any sin in buying controversial books. Heck, I don't see any sin in believing things that are fun to believe in. Some people believe Jesus actually was married to Mary Magdalene. And some believe that people talk to spirits, and some believe that aliens crashed in Area 51. In the end, we all live, we all die, and whatever makes you happy, go for it... and while you're at it, please, buy my book. Charlie PS. I'm going to give Dan Brown credit for something, and I'll tell you why I'll side with Dan Brown in an instant over the experts: When asked about things like, the nature of Jesus and Mary Magdaline, the "experts" make authoritative claims in a seeming attempt to "squash" discussion. In contrast, Dan Brown said this: "My hope for The Da Vinci Code was, in addition to entertaining people, that it might serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations and rekindle their interest in topics of faith." He also said this: "By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress." I agree with Dan Brown that I believe in open discussion and exploration, and that we all need to follow our own spiritual quest to determine truth for ourselves and "decipher life's big mysteries." I would never bow to an "expert" or an "authority." I prefer to think for myself. I don't think I've ever read a nonfiction book that I didn't think critically about and find at least some areas of disagreement with the "expert" authors. We are all free to think and explore reality, and anything that encourages thinking and discussion and exploration is a good thing in my opinion. Dan Brown's books do that, and I'm grateful to him for that.
You're not supposed to bow to experts and scholars, you're supposed to criticise their work, add to it, see where it fails, then build on its yourself. Writing authoritively is convention; you make your claim and proceed to argue it through until you feel your point is proven, you don't make vague comments or ask questions and try to create discussion, you trust that other people are intelligent enough to be able to formulate questions and responses without you holding their hand through it. I also find this whole "the character said it, not Dan Brown" thing to be a little redundant; the fact is, Brown put those things into his books after researching them. He is clearly very confident about the research he has done, and goes togreat pans to tell us that everything he reserached actually exists. So are you then arguing that he deliberately gets things wrong because that's what the character would do? Or that even after doing all tis research, he doesn't come to any conclusions himself and only his characters do? That sounds ridiculous really....
That is exactly why Brown is so criticized. He claims to've done his research, but that doesn't stop anyone from believing in the past recreated. If you really consider Brown's opinion greater than that of real studied individuals than you should just say it. We would then consider your opinion and throw it out the window. Do you believe one fiction writer over scores of historians? That being said, the book is fairly placed in the fiction aisle and should be treated as such: fiction. Many people buy into Brown's alternate world. I know several friends that I've had to refute with evidence (I almost never have to do that). This is a big deal because historians are all about accuracy. If the mass majority of people believe Dan Brown is right, who's work goes down the drain? Not Brown's. peace, -nick
Huh?? My whole post clearly indicates that I value expert opinion higher than Dan Brown's...did you read it at all?
No, I am pointing out that his work is fiction, with fact-based backdrop. Those arguing against him are trying to make the fiction and the backdrop the same, or confusing them. (Edit: Although, yes, sometimes the characters do get things wrong as intended by the author. That's an element of virtually all fiction. Just look at the Harry Potter books, and how many times Harry misinterprets what's going on, as intended by the author. That's only part of it though.) One can do research, even extensive research, and incorporate it into fiction. One's fiction need not be entirely fancy-free fabrications taken entirely out of ones imagination without a bit of research or a shred of information, nor does writing that contains factual information as its backdrop, when written as fiction, need to contain fact and only fact without a shred of fiction placed in there. I think Dan Brown's books have the perfect balance of fiction and fact, blended into entertaining and provocative works that encourage one to further discussion and research. Not only that, I enjoy them. Charlie ??? We've barely scratched the surface of the many things about his writing that one may discuss. This thread is open to all who want to discuss any aspect of Dan Brown's writing. I would have no problem with this thread being active and open for months and years to come, talking about everything from the POV and character development in Deception Point to better adjectives to describe the pyramid in the Lost Symbol. I do wish more fans of Dan Brown would come on board, though, and the discussion could move beyond "fact verses fiction in the Da Vinci Code" when there's so much more that could be discussed about Dan Brown's work. Charlie Is that directed at me? Because it certainly doesn't represent my views, or anything I said or hinted at. (And... "believe" about what, specifically? About what his own claims are? Absolutely, I'd believe anyone who says, "these are my claims..." before anyone else who says, "that person over there claims this...") Edit: By the way... I'm working on a book of my own that is similar, in some ways, to Dan Brown's novels. My book is a fictional thriller novel with a history backdrop. Let me tell you, the hundreds of hours I've spent pouring over old history books, traveling all over the country to visit historic buildings, talking to people, examining buildings, even reading up on something as random as the weather and climate of Ohio mountains... I have no doubt that Dan Brown has worn himself ragged doing research. To suggest that he has not worked his bee-hind off, simply because his work contains fiction, frankly, is simply not very fair to the man. I know first hand how hard research can be--and a lot of it never even ends up in your novel! Absolutely! Ironically, it's Dan Brown's opponents who have the greatest problems doing this. As I pointed out, I don't see them writing critical books on the errors of Jurassic Park... or the millions of other fiction books out there that have some science or history in the backdrop. To give a couple better examples: A lot of people think that the "Left Behind" series is true, and that series is a much poorer representation of the truth about Jesus or the contents of the Bible than anything Dan Brown ever wrote. And Michael Cricton's State of Fear is one of the most irresponsible works of fiction that was ever believed to be scientifically accurate, as many people do believe, and as, it most certainly is not. Neither of these works have any major works written debunking them. I have to point out--many of the speculations and fun-fiction theories in Dan Brown's books were theories before Dan Brown ever came along. I knew of the Mary Magdalene-as-Jesus'-suitor theory long before Dan Brown--and so did the Gnostics some 1,800 years ago. "Is right" about what? That Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene? That the person in the Last Supper may have been Magdalene? Some other part of his fiction? As I pointed out, these aren't Dan Brown's theories. They were theories long before he came along and would have been theories if he never came along. Nor has he even claimed that these theories are true. The only thing he specifically claimed was true was the existence of the art, architecture, rituals and documents in his books, which he did his best to physically describe accurately. Who's to say? Frankly, I don't think the "experts" or anyone else knows what they're talking about. If we had a time machine, we might go back and find out Jesus had a relationship with someone named Ruth, was executed when he was 49, and that the person in the Last Supper was Leonardo Da Vinci's half-brother Sal. All we really have is some fragmentary evidence and our imaginations. And even scholars disagree. I've read scholars who date many of the Gnostic Gospels much earlier than other scholars do... and nobody, nobody knows authoritatively and for absolute certain precisely when what texts originated, or who authored them, or much of anything about the life of the historic Jesus--and some speculate that there was no historic Jesus, and have some very strong arguments to that end as well. Dan Brown gives us an entertaining fiction book containing some fairly accurate descriptions of real documents, art and architecture and some characters whose speculation mirrors that of people who were speculating long before Dan Brown was a toddler learning to speak. And you know what? His books are pretty entertaining, enjoyed by many. Some have argued too that his descriptions were "pedestrian." If you feel that way, by all means, write your book, improve on the descriptions and give it an even more exciting plot and story, get it published, and tell me the title, because I really, truly want to read it! Charlie
I don't see what the problem with arguments is. We are having a perfectly friendly argument with each other. Let me steer the conversation away from fact vs. fiction and talk about Brown's actual writing. How do you guys think he writes? I think some of his sentences need rewording, but I'm not quite sure if I should blame Brown or his editor. I mentioned earlier that I haven't read any other thrillers, so I can't compare Brown to any other writers of his genre. But he could have done a better job in his novels, IMO.
I think that's true of everything ever written. I don't think there's such a thing as the perfect sentence, the perfect paragraph, the perfectly written book. The problem is, you can't spend an eternity revising. You'd finish one perfect sentence and then you'd die. Perfection is unattainable. It's art. That said... let's explore specific areas where we think Dan Brown can be improved. I want to say up this front (in the spirit of Cognito's understandable reminder to keep things civil--not that things haven't been civil so far, but he has seen and I have seen how things can sometimes get): I enjoy Dan Brown's books. I am at least mildly annoyed when I read statements that suggest that anyone who reads and enjoys his work are of substandard intellect, or that they are blind, mindless followers, etc. Most who know me well consider me a fairly intelligent, nice guy. I'm fine with criticism (both of me and of works I like) but sometimes... people forget to be nice. That's all I wanted to say as a precursor to this. The observation I made about Dan Brown's writing, its major flaw in my opinion, I've never seen anyone comment on. I commented on it in another thread, and I'll point it out here: Dan Brown seems to have a POV (Point of View) problem. Those who have followed some of the POV discussions and/or who have read books on writing POV know the difference between "limited third person" and "omniscient third person," but let me review it briefly: "Limited third person" is narrative from the eyes of a third person observer, called the POV character. It's similar to first person, except using a person's name instead of "I". The similarity to first person is that the narrator can only see what the "POV character" can see. The third person narrator can see into the mind of the POV character, but not into the minds of other characters. The third person narrator cannot see future events. The third person narrator cannot see (or smell, or hear, or feel, or taste) anything the POV character cannot. The POV character can only change with a major breakpoint: New chapter, subchapter, etc. An excellent example of well-executed Limited Third Person is the Harry Potter novels, written with Harry Potter as the POV character. With the POV limited to Harry Potter, the reader goes along making the same assumptions Harry does, making the same mistakes Harry does, seeing what Harry does through his eyes. "Omniscient third person" is narrated by a narrator that can see virtually all things in the story (though won't necessarily tell all), can allude to future events, can jump from the mind of one character to another, etc. The problem I have with some of Dan Brown's books is, he seems to write in Third Person Limited, but occasionally drifts into Omniscient, foreshadowing future events, or giving a one-sentence glimpse into the mind of someone who is not the POV character. (Example: Narration from Robert Langdon's POV, then, suddenly, "Little did he know he'd soon...") He doesn't remain consistent to his chosen POV. That, in my opinion, is his biggest weakness as a writer. (I'd also like to see more use of metaphor and simile, but that's a stylistic matter, and there are lots of really great authors who don't make a lot of use of those techniques. In contrast, I probably overuse them in my own writing.) Charlie
I have to say, I just read the entire discussion, and I also find it extremely annoying that Dan Brown claimed '99%' of the architecture, history, rituals are true. Charlie, your defensive claim that if 99% were true, then Robert Langdon would have to be true is preposterous. Your right, he is talking generally, and I'm pretty sure that 99% would cover much of the untrue sequences also. Be realistic. As for his writing, it really is terrible. There is no development in his characters; Robert Langdon is as supercilious and slimy as ever. His kryptonite as claustraphobia is laughable. In fact I hope he drowns in the next book after becoming incased in his own inflated ego. Why not read a real book. Charlie, I'm sure you would appreciate something like 'The name of the Rose', or 'Foucaults Pendulum'. And in the words of Umberto Eco: I was obliged to read it (The Da Vinci code) because everybody was asking me about it. My answer is that Dan Brown is one of the characters in my novel Foucault’s Pendulum, which is about people who start believing in occult stuff. - But you yourself seem interested in the kabbalah, alchemy and other occult practices explored in the novel. No. In Foucault’s Pendulum I wrote the grotesque representation of these kind of people. So Dan Brown is one of my creatures. Its a fun read, yes, but nothing more than that.
What's preposterous is taking the 99% statement literally, as my claim illustrated. I'm not sure why people get so obsessed with what other people say... as though, Dan Brown said it, it's written on a stone tablet and we must dissect it. He was talking in an interview. People say things like that all the time, "Yeah, 99% of the time my wife yells at me..." and, because they're a person chatting with another person, nobody cares. Dan Brown is just a regular human being. Give him a break! Now, I'm not sure why you find the statement annoying. What, specifically, was not true, that he claimed was true? We discussed this at length--I think the characters are much better developed than many classics in the genre. Robert Langdon, for example, is much more complex than Sherlock Holmes (who has his addictions as his own kryptonite.) There's nothing laughable, IMHO about claustrophobia. This is the kind of condescension I'd really rather avoid. I don't think I've ever called any book "not a real book." If you want to make a suggestion, I'd rather you did it without preceding it with condescension. A kinder, gentler recommendation would be nice. Why should anything be more? I like to read books that are fun to read. Is that a bad thing? If you told me, of your books, "they're real books, but they're not fun reads," you know what books I would avoid? Charlie
No, I assumed aron's post was in reference to one of yours or someone else's point in the argument. I also agree. When I've become more read on Brown's work, I'll certainly contribute to the thread properly. peace, -nick
I wasn't talking about perfection. I was just talking about rewording it to make it clearer and easier to understand. I don't have any of the books in front of me, but I definitely remember thinking that some of the sentences were not worded in the best possible way. I do agree that his books are fairly fun to read. I agree with this. He loses the thriller aspects of the story when he discloses such information to the reader. For thrillers, I would prefer an author to stick to limited so as not to divulge too much information.
I've actually found few authors as easy to understand as Dan Brown. (Not counting, obviously, children's books.) I actually read (and often enjoy) a lot of books that are very difficult to understand, from Shakespeare to 17th century religious books. May be that's why I find Dan Brown incredibly easy to understand. (Comparable, I think, to other writers in the thriller or horror genres, like Stephen King, Dean Koontz, or John Saul.) Brad Meltzer may be easier to understand, and I love his books and they're incredibly fun, but his books almost walk the borderline between adult and young-adult. I'm thinking about it, and honestly I can't think of an author in the genre who I've found hard to understand. (Though on the "worst book" thread, I mentioned a nonfiction religious book called The New Testament Code that I would call impossible to understand, and I still think truly gets the prize as the worst book ever.) It would be great if we could take a specific passage and try to reword it together here, but I'm not sure if we can due to rigid rules on the site about not posting excerpts of copyright-protected material. What I really meant, by the way (I know I used the word "perfection") was not even "perfection" so much as this: You can only redraft so many times. Eventually, you have to say, "I'm done." I've actually overworked portions of my writing because I didn't say "I'm done" soon enough. I'm not sure whether any passages in his books really require specific polishing, although I'd love to try polishing some of Dan Brown's writing as I think it would be a valuable exercise in teaching me to polish my own writing. (That's actually the stage I'm at now with my book--redrafting, rewriting and polishing.) I made the mistake earlier this year of spending months trying to polish the first 20 pages, never satisfied, always wanting to make it a little better, a little better. I made no progress with my book, and I actually may have made it worse. That's the sort of pitfall I want to avoid in the future, which is what I'm talking about, in, not trying for perfection. Charlie
I think it should be fine as long as we cite the source properly. I don't have any of his books, so someone else is going to have to provide passages.
Keep the excerpts short -- a paragraph or two -- to keep it as Fair Use, as well as citing the source.
Thanks Cognito! It actually might be a fun exercise to try to find ways to improve portions of Dan Brown's (or actually any major writer's!) books. Okay, here's a short excerpt from the beginning of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Suggestions?
One thing that keeps coming up in threads in the general writing section is the use of italics for thoughts. I'm not against it myself, but I know a lot of people are. Brown does this quite a bit throughout the novel, so I was wondering what other people thought about that.
This is actually something I've been thinking about lately for my own writing. Forgive the O.T. diversion, I'll try to tie it back. What I've been considering is the options of: Italics. "Quotes." Or straight text. For thoughts: Where the hell am I? "Where the hell am I?" he thought. Where the hell am I? And for flashbacks/memories: As Johnson ran down the street, he thought back to the morning, two weeks earlier when he found himself in the motel. Where the hell am I? (followed by more flashback) As Johnson ran down the street, he thought back to the morning, two weeks earlier when he found himself in the motel. "Where the hell am I?" he had thought. (followed by more flashback) As Johnson ran down the street, he thought back to the morning, two weeks earlier when he found himself in the motel. (line break) Where the hell am I? (followed by more flashback) I really think flashback should be in italics, not sure about thought. I'm wondering if, for thoughts in third person limited, straight text wouldn't be the most logical. After all, third person limited is from the person's POV, so everything, theoretically, is his thoughts. (Tying it back): By this theory, Dan Brown not having the line... Where the hell am I? ...in italics makes sense. Because we're in third person limited, we're seeing, hearing, and theoretically, thinking, through Langdon. But I'm open to either possible choice. Flashback, to me, certainly makes sense to put in italics. I don't know, I'm open to various possible ways. My book is a third-person limited, but sometimes I go deeper into thought while at other times I focus on the action, and sometimes, the thoughts go into brief flashback mode. (One of my main characters has a traumatic repressed memory from his childhood, partially revealed in the prologue but never fully revealed until the book's climax. He frequently flashes on bit-memories, sometimes only one line, italics, reminding the reader of the trauma and revealing how the memory influences him now.) Charlie
I like sticking with italics or quotes. When using third person, I don't like straight text because you keep switching perspectives. For example: "He ran up the stairs. Where am I? He ran down the stairs." It just reads awkwardly for me. As for flashbacks, I like quotes and the added tag of "he had thought." It gives a clear statement that the character thought this during the time of the flashback and is not thinking it right now.
