Dan Brown: The Da Vinci Code

[raffaellabella]

It's not exempt, but I have a problem with people bagging it without saying anything constructive about why they don't like it. It seems to me that alot of people say they don't like it, just for the sake of making sure that everyone knows they don't like it.

If you read through the entire thread you'll see that people have been specific about what they don't like about the book.

 

[ions]

Your consensus relies on the "royal we"?

No, he means "we" as a board. Dan's poor writing has been discussed and proven several times on this board. Look it up. I've been keeping an eye on this thread and talking to many people at work, a major bookstore, about Dan's work. I've been trying to determine why it's popular and why those that hate it, like myself, hate it so much. Here are a few of my thoughts.

Writing well really is not that subjective. To those that do not find Brown clumsy I suggest you read some Strunk. A couple times. Look at the myriad examples of Brown's grammatical buffoonery online. Some are going to argue this and say it's written well. It's not. You're wrong. At this point this should no longer be disputed. Spend some time with writers that are very good with the language. Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go is an example of great writing even if the story was a bore. OK, so technically with language he's clumsy, so what? Maybe there still is a strong story in his books.

He contends that much of what he says is factual and it's not. He's even managed to get locations wrong! If he can't look at a map to research how well does he have the rest of his content down? Myself I don't know enough about any of his content to dispute a word of it, but I don't care. I'm not an angry catholic that likes to see disparaging comments made about the religion that was forced upon me as a child. A popular reason given to me for the book being enjoyable. Regardless, there are people who are much more learned than Brown who are disputing him. And they're doing it while writing well.

OK, the "facts" of the book that have been largely responsible for the books popularity are quite possibley Freyed as it were. Maybe the story is still a page turning clever work with many layers? No. It's predictable. the only time it's not predictable is when the stupendously stupid happens. Like people diving out of helicopters a million miles from the earths surface only to survive. Stewart has already said more than once, all Dan has is plot. That is his only device. There is no subtext to any of Brown's work. It's all laid out. There's no thinking other than predicting the outcome of his contrived puzzles. Good literature has depth that Dan's work does not.

So why is it so popular? Most people I talk to list the Catholic Church as a reason. There are a lot of Catholics out there. There are a lot of people that say they're Catholic and feel they can get back in touch with there religion by reading a bestseller based on Catholicism. If a book takes a couple kicks at the religion that annoyed them as youths all the better. Especially if it's not a challenging read. If what I've seen permeates through the forty million plus who have read this book the majority of them are not readers by habit.

Why do others with no Catholic interests like it? It's an easy exciting read. They tell others. Word of mouth has been huge with this book. Non-readers are telling other non-readers about this easy to read exciting book. One of the books that stands as an alternative to Brown's around here is Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. That is a challenging read! It is very dense and cerebral. Eco does not lead the reader around on a leash. The language would be quite challenging to those that are not regular readers due to word choice alone. These are the same people that are told they gotta hear this new song, watch this new TV show, etc. The people that do not find art on their own to appreciate but just take what's handed to them. The last thing these people are is a judge of a good book. They're a judge of what they like and that is all.

Why do some avid readers like Brown? I'm not entirely sure. I suspect it's a guilty pleasure. And instead of admitting they like trash they dress the trash up. We are all entitled to our likes but that does not mean that what we like is actually good or what we don't is bad! Taste and quality are not mutually exclusive.

Why do some hate him? Well other than the knee-jerk reactions of many to hate what becomes popular what are the real reasons. There are tremendous books out there that get ignored. Authors so much more competent than Brown. Comparitively ignored. It's frustrating. You read a beautiful book and the try and recommend it to them. "Is The Brothers Karamzov like The Da Vinci Code?" OK so I would never recommend Brothers K to a Brown fan but you get the idea. I fall into this category. If Brown had mild success because he wrote some pulp that stimulated a few occasional readers fine but I've had customers say after telling them what I was reading "Dickens? That's so dry, Have you read The Da Vinci Code?" I shake my head. "Oh you should! It's so exciting! And full of stuff about the Catholic church that's good to know." Follow up Great Expectations with that?! Bite me. Admit it's cheap quick easy stimulation and you'll receive no guff from me.

Unfortunately I've run out of time before I can proofread this. Considering I've griped about the grammar of someone else I'm sure there're many errors in this that will remain.

 

[SFG75]

Why do some hate him? Well other than the knee-jerk reactions of many to hate what becomes popular what are the real reasons. There are tremendous books out there that get ignored. Authors so much more competent than Brown. Comparitively ignored. It's frustrating. You read a beautiful book and the try and recommend it to them. "Is The Brothers Karamzov like The Da Vinci Code?" OK so I would never recommend Brothers K to a Brown fan but you get the idea. I fall into this category. If Brown had mild success because he wrote some pulp that stimulated a few occasional readers fine but I've had customers say after telling them what I was reading "Dickens? That's so dry, Have you read The Da Vinci Code?" I shake my head. "Oh you should! It's so exciting! And full of stuff about the Catholic church that's good to know." Follow up Great Expectations with that?! Bite me. Admit it's cheap quick easy stimulation and you'll receive no guff from me.

I believe that you do have a great point here. You are more likely to have a conversation with someone about TDVC than you are about Lolita or The Brothers Karamazov, both of which are absolutely marvelous in every way. The characters, underlying currents of philosophy and social commentary, not to mention how well they are written, are in a league of their own. Even on this kind of board, bring up any classical work and you'll be lucky to find a few people who will comment upon it unless something along the lines of a book of the month thing is arranged. Try asking the average person you run across in public about certain classics and you'll get odd stares. While I do believe it is a valid point between the TVDC and greater works that are ignored to a certain extent, isn't that why Mr. Brown's works fall under the category of popular fiction?

 

[Doug Johnson]

It had no theme other than its plot - we've been there already.

And you were wrong.

Theme:

A topic of discourse or discussion.
A subject of artistic representation.
An implicit or recurrent idea; a motif.


Plot:

The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.

The sacred feminine is not an event. It is an implicit or recurrent idea.

You can ignore dictionary definitions if you want, but doing so doesn't make you sophisticated, it makes you someone who ignores dictionary definitions.

 

[Doug Johnson]

you'd better put on your helmet and flame retardant suit

[/URL]

I think I can handle it. We'll see.

 

[Doug Johnson]

He contends that much of what he says is factual and it's not.

This critique always makes me laugh. You're criticizing a work of fiction, for being fictional.

 

[Doug Johnson]

Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. That is a challenging read! It is very dense and cerebral. Eco does not lead the reader around on a leash. The language would be quite challenging to those that are not regular readers due to word choice alone.

I'll never figure out why choosing words that many people can't understand is considered good writing. Why write, if not to be understood?

 

[Doug Johnson]

Stewart has already said more than once, all Dan has is plot. That is his only device. There is no subtext to any of Brown's work. It's all laid out. There's no thinking other than predicting the outcome of his contrived puzzles. Good literature has depth that Dan's work does not.

That is flat out wrong. In fact, I believe that the books sucess is due to it's themes. Like the sacred feminine and the humanity of Christ. The themes are highly accessible. Most Grade 10 readers realize that the book discusses the sacred feminine. Most of them can tell you that the sacred feminine is an idea, not an event.

 

[Doug Johnson]

There are tremendous books out there that get ignored.

Selling books is hard. The more you understand that, the more respect you should have for someone who sells a ton of them. Especially if you work in a book store.

 

[beer good]

That is flat out wrong. In fact, I believe that the books sucess is due to it's themes. Like the sacred feminine and the humanity of Christ. The themes are highly accessible. Most Grade 10 readers realize that the book discusses the sacred feminine. Most of them can tell you that the sacred feminine is an idea, not an event.

Funny, though, how the only female character in the book only serves the purpose of
a) being the one who knows nothing so they can explain stuff to her
b) being cute enough to serve as a romantic interest for our "Harrison Ford-like" hero.

Selling books is hard. The more you understand that, the more respect you should have for someone who sells a ton of them. Especially if you work in a book store.

By that rationale, Britney Spears deserves respect as a musician.

 

[Dogmatix]

No, he means "we" as a board.

So those who don't agree have now been voted off the island?

Look all I've been saying over and over and over again is that I enjoyed this book. Period. No further claim. I'm not arguing your points about the lack of literary merit.

For me this book was delicious brain candy. Something juicy to enjoy after an exhausting day at the hospital dealing with sick patients, angry clients and the enormous piles of paperwork. Brain candy is say; a video game, The Three Stooges, Pepperoni Pizza. It requires no effort and allows for some escapism.

I have over 500 books in my library; from classics, to voluminous mecial texts, to the ridiculous Far Side Collections. My favorite authors include Ecco, Steinbck and Douglas Adams. I've enjoyed each in it's own way. I'm secure enough in my intelligence to read TDVC and not fear losing a couple of brain cells in the process. I've got plenty left to burn through. I probably won't run out before I die.

I actually enjoy the points you (meaning all the critics and not one or another in particular) make specific to the flaws in the text. Some of them are excellent and insightful. It's the subtle and sometimes not so subtle references to the lack of intelligence a fan of TDVC must surely suffer that I take exception to.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

This critique always makes me laugh. You're criticizing a work of fiction, for being fictional.

I'm not sure that you understood his point. Dan Brown states at the beginning of the book that a majority of the content is fact, which is plainly isn't. So basically, Dan Brown is drawing people in to read his book with a lie - and people are falling for it. Some people are fed up with TDVC's popularity being based on a false statment by the author, and the guillibility and ignorance of those who have read it and loved it because of its (entirely fictional) plot (or "theme" if you will - I don't really want to get into that debate), or because they see it as "intelligent".

I'll never figure out why choosing words that many people can't understand is considered good writing. Why write, if not to be understood?

On the contrary, I think that it should be considered good writing in this case. Both Lolita and Foucault's Pendulum have been written for people who read and enjoy books (and therefore usually have a wider understanding of English volcabulary), not for mass market distribution. So therefore, both of these books are highly readable when taken from the point of view of the target market. Sure, not every Tom, Dick and Harry can read it - but how does that lessen the quality of the writing? Were not talking about Ulysses here - both of these books are entirely understandable, they just use words that may be challenging to those who don't read a lot. Am I to assume that you believe books that can be read by everyone are written better by default than those that can only be read by those with a wide volcabulary? Green Eggs and Ham was written much better than, say, A Tale of Two Cities?

 

[ions]

Doug, as Monkeycatcher graciously pointed out I was not disparaging fiction for being fiction but lambasting a pompous jackass for his failed attempt at knowitallism. To say something is true that is not makes one a liar. I despise liars. It's good you can't understand how choosing difficult words makes for good writing. Cause it doesn't. Thing is, I never said it did. I said that Eco's word choice was challenging. I wouldn't dare dispute it though. It was appropriate for that novel. Like I said, Foucault's Pendulum was a cerebral read and it had language appropriate for that book. My contension is that someone who finds The Da Vinci Code a challenging or engaging read is going to get pummelled by Eco's book. As for Brown I don't find his word choice particularly bad. The order of them and the frequent redundent words are more painful than the choices he's made.

Getting a book sold to a publisher is hard. Selling a lot of them is hard. Selling the amount Brown has comes down to luck really. He managed to pinch the nerve of enough people to read it, enough people made crontroversy over it, enough ignorant readers recommended it to enough other ignorant readers. Beyond getting the book written and published the success of it had nothing to do with Brown's skill. Regardless, I fail to see your point about it's popularity and why that should be respected. In fact if anything it proves that this book strikes a tremendously low lowest common denominator. Crowd mentalities buy this book. Crowds rarely do anything clever. Granted there can be good things that are well received by large audiences. This is not one of those times.

I won't argue your dictionary defintions of literary devices. I will argue your application of them. Brown takes something that could, or maybe would, make a good theme and uses it as a plot device. It's one of the main reasons his books are so bad. Stewart has pointed this out quite clearly before. And Stewart if I have misunderstood your previous posts on the subject please interject.

Dogmatix, either you have missed my point or I was unclear. I never said enjoying The Da Vinci Code made someone stupid. I said only the stupid dress it up to be more than it is. You have acknowledged it's sugar. No nutritional content. I agree.

 

[Dogmatix]

Dogmatix, either you have missed my point or I was unclear. I never said enjoying The Da Vinci Code made someone stupid. I said only the stupid dress it up to be more than it is. You have acknowledged it's sugar. No nutritional content. I agree.

Thanks. That is all I wanted to hear.

 

[Libre]

I greatly enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. I must admit that after about 2/3 of the way through, I started to tire of the madcap antics - even if the main characters didn't.

Funny, though, how the only female character in the book only serves the purpose of
a) being the one who knows nothing so they can explain stuff to her
b) being cute enough to serve as a romantic interest for our "Harrison Ford-like" hero.

I don't agree. The female character was integral to the plot, solved many of the puzzle elements, was strong and smart, and if she was cute, so much the better.
As I say, the slapstick/farcical sort of action made me start to think Abbot and Costello were going to make an appearance. But, what do you want in a book, anyway? I read to be intrigued and excited, and The Da Vinci code succeeded, as far as that's concerned.
I can't wait for the movie.

 

[pontalba]

In the end, all this thread accomplishes is to increase his sales. In fact a friend of mine actually bought a copy and spent...a whole dollar on it. Nice hardback too.

The point of this post however is that while I (and evidently many) don't like the book it is a "hot" topic. Why? Does Brown really bring up a new slant that has been unexplored previously? No. But what he did accomplish was slick commercialism. And the lawsuit against him was manna from Heaven.

This thread (and its many clones) have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[blueboatdriver]

Do you think maybe there was some sort of conspiracy going on between Brown and the Holy Blood Holy Grail authors? Their book seems to be a lot more prominent in the bookshops I've visited latley.

 

[Motokid]

"The only bad press is no press"

The very idea that anybody who spends copious amounts of time bashing the ever loving poop out of Dan Brown, and any of his books, is actually helping sell more of his books is enough to make me smile everytime I think about it.

Can't wait to see the next Da Vinci Code thread started....should be in another few weeks by my estimate.

 

[pontalba]

Serendipity:.......the faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things Not Sought for; also: an instance of this.

I don't really believe that the authors of both books would be so stupid as to attempt to pull a trick like that. But it was in fact serendipitous.

And who turns down or downplays Any Sort of Publicity? They milk it for all its worth.

 

[Zolipara]

…again I’m left with the question “So what?”…btw I note that this thread was started, and attention drawn, by someone who hated the book…they also appear not to be on speaking terms with the sites search facility…

Its quite simple. Whenever you have a book/movie etc that attracs so much attention there will be a lot of love/hate posts about it. Right now its TDVC that everyone "have to read". Every book forum has a lot of posts about this book by people that liked it, naturally there will be posts by those that dont like it. Both camps seem to be equally unable to use the search forum here.