Dan Brown anyone?

[Lemmiwinks]

OK I know that the man makes an overuse of suspense and intrigue and that the endings are generally disapointing but still, there's something about his writing that is pretty addictive. Just finished The Lost Symbol the other day. At first I was like "hm yeah he's using the exact same tricks as in the Da Vinci Code", but about halfway through I was completely hooked anyway. That part when Langdon drowns, brilliant stuff, I actually had to put down the book for a few minutes cause I found it too overwhelming.

 

So anyone else tried it? what are your thoughts?

[Arronax]

OK I know that the man makes an overuse of suspense and intrigue and that the endings are generally disapointing but still, there's something about his writing that is pretty addictive. Just finished The Lost Symbol the other day. At first I was like "hm yeah he's using the exact same tricks as in the Da Vinci Code", but about halfway through I was completely hooked anyway. That part when Langdon drowns, brilliant stuff, I actually had to put down the book for a few minutes cause I found it too overwhelming.

 

So anyone else tried it? what are your thoughts?

 

I didn't read the book, though I talked with my cousin who read all of his books and he was speaking about them just the way you're presenting it in your post. He was overwhelmed and hooked to his stories. Though I'm not a big fan of books (  )  I was seriously reconsidering if I should buy "The Lost Symbol" and every day I find more and more people who tell me that the book is good. So, maybe I'll get addicted to Dan Brown too, who knows  

 

 

Anyways, I'm a big researcher and seeker for truth about this world, and Dan Brown's books seem to be inspired by secret societies and that's just what attracts me a lot. 

 

 

[rino]

My honest opinion is that Dan Brown is the same shit as John Grisham, Mario Puzo or Tom Clancy.

 

Grisham used the judicial system, the law suits and the courts of various sorts to create suspense and tension in his novels.

 

Mario Puzo built an entire career trying to re-write "The Godfather" a hundred times over. Unfortunately, all of his subsequent work sucked even more than his breakthrough novel. On the good side, the movies are ace.

 

Tom Clancy dealt with political, diplomatic and foreign policy issue/problems/scandals, double jeopardies, spying games and similar stuff.

 

Dan Brown on the other hand is using this whole catholic, occult mysticism, which, while unquestionably very vivid and palpable, full of very imaginative descriptions and interesting trivia, still never really reaches the heights Brown gets credited for.

 

All four of these authors have three things in common:

1) all four are pretty average writers

2) the movies made based on their books are always better than the books themselves. I'd usually put myself to sleep with the fish for even thinking that a movie is better than a book, but I'd rather read "Angels and Demons" a dozen times over than see the movie once again.

3) they all basically exploited the same genuine idea (at best two) over and over and over and over, more times than anybody would (and could) want to count.

[@reyu]

I haven't read any of his books yet. He was hyped so much that I wasn't interested anymore. I saw the movies though and pretty much liked them. Farfetched yet entertaining.

 

If his books are as good as The name of the rose by Umberto Eco I definitly will like them. But I doubt it. The symbolysm used by Umberto Eco is not to reveal a farfetched conspiracy but to help the story being told. I think the stories of Dan Brown are cheap thrills, easy in wanting to believe in them. It doesn't mean that it's bad though. I guess he is pretty good at what he does. But again, I haven't read him yet.

[rino]

I haven't read any of his books yet. He was hyped so much that I wasn't interested anymore. I saw the movies though and pretty much liked them. Farfetched yet entertaining.

 

If his books are as good as The name of the rose by Umberto Eco I definitly will like them. But I doubt it. The symbolysm used by Umberto Eco is not to reveal a farfetched conspiracy but to help the story being told. I think the stories of Dan Brown are cheap thrills, easy in wanting to believe in them. It doesn't mean that it's bad though. I guess he is pretty good at what he does. But again, I haven't read him yet.

 

You're kidding right? Dan Brown doesn't have a patch on Umberto Eco, not even in his dreams.

He's an entertaining read, with enough suspense to keep you attached to the book, no doubt, but it's not much more then a high octane adventure, so if you're expecting Eco, save yourself the effort and the delusion!

[@reyu]

You're kidding right? Dan Brown doesn't have a patch on Umberto Eco, not even in his dreams.

He's an entertaining read, with enough suspense to keep you attached to the book, no doubt, but it's not much more then a high octane adventure, so if you're expecting Eco, save yourself the effort and the delusion!

 

As I said I doubt it. I will be tempted to compare them and I guess I will be disappointed. I'm thinking of reading more of Eco's work first anyway.

[ion1zed]

He's an entertaining read, with enough suspense to keep you attached to the book, no doubt, but it's not much more then a high octane adventure[...]

 

Yes, and people who are looking for that kind of entertainment, will enjoy it to the fullest, although "The Lost Symbol" fell behind other works, including "Meteor".

[Snapinho]

You're kidding right? Dan Brown doesn't have a patch on Umberto Eco, not even in his dreams.

He's an entertaining read, with enough suspense to keep you attached to the book, no doubt, but it's not much more then a high octane adventure, so if you're expecting Eco, save yourself the effort and the delusion!

 

I agree completely with rino, Dan Brown is an average writer at best, the books he became famous for are nothing special, in my opinion, and have been before by a lot of people. How he suddenly became so popular? I have no idea. It's just a thriller and not a very good one either, I think.

 

I mean, it kept me entertained for the time I was reading it, but that was it. Nothing groundbreaking at all.

[Arronax]

Average or not, I guess that opening such topics to the mainstream media is far more important than having thrills while reading a book. Many people have no idea about the situation in this world, and books like this are always welcome. They introduce long-forgotten topics and things which are being conducted in the shadow of the mainstream. It could be an eye opener for someone, which is important. Think of it as a first step to reality.

[Rotwang]

Anyways, I'm a big researcher and seeker for truth about this world, and Dan Brown's books seem to be inspired by secret societies and that's just what attracts me a lot. 

 

Dan Brown's books seem to be inspired by bullshit. See e.g. here, here or here.

[Arronax]

Dan Brown's books seem to be inspired by bullshit. See e.g. here, here or here.

 

As I said before, I didn't read any of his books so I can't say I like his way of writing or not. But now when I saw these links, it's just too fictional for any research. Since I already mentioned that I don't read novels I'll skip this one too. Thanks for the references Rotwang. Fictional books about things which really do exist is funny.

 

 

 

[Rotwang]

I should probably have mentioned that I haven't read any of his books either, so have nothing to say about their merits as fiction (my parents tell me they're crap, but entertaining crap). When it comes to the subject of historical accuracy, those of us who aren't historians don't really have any choice but to rely on the word of the many differing voices who claim expert status. But some of the nonsense about cryptanalysis in Digital Fortress is just painful reading even to know-nothings like me, so I'd definitely take the word of those historians who disagree with Dan Brown over that of Dan Brown.

[@reyu]

I should probably have mentioned that I haven't read any of his books either, so have nothing to say about their merits as fiction (my parents tell me they're crap, but entertaining crap). When it comes to the subject of historical accuracy, those of us who aren't historians don't really have any choice but to rely on the word of the many differing voices who claim expert status. But some of the nonsense about cryptanalysis in Digital Fortress is just painful reading even to know-nothings like me, so I'd definitely take the word of those historians who disagree with Dan Brown over that of Dan Brown.

 

The links you've brought up are interesting to read, wether you've read the book or not. Fiction is fiction but the way he seems to throw around inacurate facts is pretty mindblowing. I am far from being an intellectual so you could fool me once or twice but shouldn't he be double checking these facts. He's creating food for confusion instead of food for thought.

[Arronax]

He's creating food for confusion instead of food for thought.

 

Very nice said 

 

 

 

[Lemmiwinks]

He's creating food for confusion instead of food for thought.

 

lol well I guess it depends on how you see it... if anyone in this world knew the TRUTH about theses things then he wouldn't be writing books of fiction, he's be winning Nobel prizes and possibly create the religion of the future. All Brown could do is shed some light on some mysteries and speculate on them. I think many people tend to forget that his books are in the FICTION cateogry in the library, not History, Religion or Philosophy... and for a fiction writer, he's pretty damn good, no doubt about that

[PRS]

Master of Cheese (good thing)

[Rotwang]

I think many people tend to forget that his books are in the FICTION cateogry in the library, not History, Religion or Philosophy...

 

Unfortunately, one of the people who seem to have forgotten this is Dan Brown himself:

 

Interviewer: When we talk about da Vinci and your book, how much is true and how much is fabricated in your storyline?

Brown: 99 percent of it is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is … all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true.

Another interviewer: This is a novel ... If you were writing it as a non-fiction book, would it have been different?

Brown: I don't think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book to disprove this (Jesus/Mary Magdalene/Grail) theory. And after numerous trips to Europe and about two years of research I really became a believer. I decided this theory makes more sense to me than what I learnt as a child.

(source)

[Lemmiwinks]

Unfortunately, one of the people who seem to have forgotten this is Dan Brown himself:

 

 

(source)

 

hmmm well somehow he is right... I mean, the places, the architecture and the paintings are all described with 100% accuracy. And then if he actually believes in his theories then good for him Although he never ever says that his theories are anything else than just theories, just that they seem plausible to HIM, based on his research. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Otto Matta]

I read Angels and Demons about 7 years ago. It was thoroughly entertaining, and a hard book to put down, but I felt dirty after it, like after eating a meal at McDonald's. There was almost zero substance to the book beyond the plot's energy. This was after reading Eco's The Name of the Rose, which was, in comparison, a masterpiece of literature. I wanted more, so I did a search for similar books, and Brown's name came up. I hadn't heard of him before.

 

Basically, if you like books that are made-for-Hollywood, like Grisham and Creighton, then Brown is the writer for you. He certainly knows how to keep one's attention.

 

I worked at a bookstore shortly after The Da Vinci Code came out, and the amount of merchandising surrounding that book made me nauseous.

[Lemmiwinks]

It was thoroughly entertaining, and a hard book to put down, but I felt dirty after it, like after eating a meal at McDonald's.

 

Haha that's a nice way of putting it, I can totally relate to that

[Snapinho]

I read Angels and Demons about 7 years ago. It was thoroughly entertaining, and a hard book to put down, but I felt dirty after it, like after eating a meal at McDonald's. There was almost zero substance to the book beyond the plot's energy. This was after reading Eco's The Name of the Rose, which was, in comparison, a masterpiece of literature. I wanted more, so I did a search for similar books, and Brown's name came up.

Hehe, that was my opinion of The Da Vinci Code. Well put.