-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Dan Brown
- Thread starter penguinlord
- Start date
Ah, but you ARE offended by laziness in a writer. But it might not be laziness. It could simply be that the author was misinformed about a location he had never visited. Speaking as a writer, I wouldn't choose to limit my books only to a location where I lived. Research is important, certainly -- but it can be wrong. It's as much the editor's fault as the author's. That's one of the things that a fact-checker does for a living. But the author mostly gets blamed. Pity.
Cathy
Zolipara
New Member
Well the author goes on and on about how much work he put into the research of this book. Just check his website and read what he says about his "research". So if he put oh so much work into it, why is there oh so many factual errors in his book? On his website he says he was visiting Paris to look at some paintings, why then does he not know the place? All he would need to get his descriptions right is a simple city map of Paris. It just shows how sloppy he is in his "research". The book is filled with such factual errors. You can forgive a few, but in that book there is just too many to believe he has ever done any research on the matter at all. In fact i think his "research" was reading "Holy blood, Holy grail" and perhaps a few other similar books.
On his website Dan Brown claims to have studied art history, but yet in his books he dont know that the Gothic style is older than the knights templar architecture. He claims Leonardo did a lot of work for the Vatican, yet history tells us he only did one job for the Vatican. Many such factual errors in a book where the author brags about his amazing research. If Dan Brown had just said he wrote a "fantasy" story i dont think many would care. But since he has spent a lot of time telling people about his research and how he used the "facts" he researched its annoying to see it was just BS.
On his website Dan Brown claims to have studied art history, but yet in his books he dont know that the Gothic style is older than the knights templar architecture. He claims Leonardo did a lot of work for the Vatican, yet history tells us he only did one job for the Vatican. Many such factual errors in a book where the author brags about his amazing research. If Dan Brown had just said he wrote a "fantasy" story i dont think many would care. But since he has spent a lot of time telling people about his research and how he used the "facts" he researched its annoying to see it was just BS.
Okay, I'll grant you the location stuff, because that's sloppy. It generally doesn't bother me, though.
But historic research is very difficult as a writer when the item, such as art history, is not your primary knowledge base. He probably bragged a bit too much, which I try not to do, but it's tough to get ALL of the facts on any one subject, because many "facts" are subjective.
For example, our first novel is a historic fictional account of a race between two railroads to get to Aspen in 1887. We searched the newspapers, the old company archives and pay rolls, other books written about the subject, memoirs and diaries, but ended up having to take inferences of things that "might" have happened, because the details were sketchy and often one-sided. Now, I'm pretty anal about facts, so if I can find them, I'll use them, going so far as to research when stick matches were invented to see if the hero could have used one to light a lantern in 1887. (yes, BTW, in 1862 and were in common use by the time of our story). But we've been accused of "poor" research by some people who have interpreted the same books and documents differently. We were slammed for not including certain ethnic groups in the employee ranks, even though I could find no written evidence of such involvement. Even when I would defend our choice of a "fact" by pointing to the actual document used or a historian that agrees with us, a few will dispute it simply because they believe otherwise. I finally threw up my hands and stopped defending myself, and Brown probably has done the same.
Okay, off my soapbox!
Cathy
But historic research is very difficult as a writer when the item, such as art history, is not your primary knowledge base. He probably bragged a bit too much, which I try not to do, but it's tough to get ALL of the facts on any one subject, because many "facts" are subjective.
For example, our first novel is a historic fictional account of a race between two railroads to get to Aspen in 1887. We searched the newspapers, the old company archives and pay rolls, other books written about the subject, memoirs and diaries, but ended up having to take inferences of things that "might" have happened, because the details were sketchy and often one-sided. Now, I'm pretty anal about facts, so if I can find them, I'll use them, going so far as to research when stick matches were invented to see if the hero could have used one to light a lantern in 1887. (yes, BTW, in 1862 and were in common use by the time of our story). But we've been accused of "poor" research by some people who have interpreted the same books and documents differently. We were slammed for not including certain ethnic groups in the employee ranks, even though I could find no written evidence of such involvement. Even when I would defend our choice of a "fact" by pointing to the actual document used or a historian that agrees with us, a few will dispute it simply because they believe otherwise. I finally threw up my hands and stopped defending myself, and Brown probably has done the same.
Okay, off my soapbox!
Cathy
Zolipara
New Member
Well not including a certain ethnic group in the employee ranks is not so important. I doubt many would make a big issue out of one little thing that might or might not be wrong. What Brown did is something entirely different. He did not just write a book, but publicly bragged about his "amazing research". He continues to explain how he studied art history and spent so much time digging out these facts, but makes simple mistakes even a amateur can easily see. How can you write a book so centered around the catholic church and the templars and not know that the pope lived in Avignon for a time. According to Brown the pope (living in avignon at the time) burnt a lot of templars and had their ashes thrown into tiber(in rome). However most of the templars were burnt in Paris, and to a lesser degree in a couple of other french cities. Brown claims the Pope ordered the death of all templars, but in reality it was King Philip of France that arrested the templars. How can you claim to have spent a lot of time researching to make a book historically correct and claim the merovingians founded Paris? These are not small errors, but major errors that anyone with 5 minutes in a library can prove wrong. There are many errors like this in his book. Anyone that did not sleep through history lessons in school should know that the Pope did not always live in Rome.
Brown claims to have discovered these "facts" while studying art history. Or maybe he just read "Holy Blood, Holy grail" or another of the many books written about this old conspiracy theory.
The secret organisation Priori of Sion, founded in 1099 according to Brown, was actually founded in the 1950s by a french political radical that has admitted that it was a hoax. Browns extensive research missed this pretty obvious fact, but if i'm not mistaken Brown actually admitted that he got this fact wrong.
When you make phony claims of historical accuracy its the duty of those with real knowledge to expose the author for what he is. Because of Dan Browns claims many people believe his book is historically accurate. There is nothing wrong in writing a book of fiction with some historical inaccuracies, but not when you make the ridiculouse claims that Brown does. He should just say his book is a work of fiction, but i guess his claims sells more books and gives him more attention.
Brown claims to have discovered these "facts" while studying art history. Or maybe he just read "Holy Blood, Holy grail" or another of the many books written about this old conspiracy theory.
The secret organisation Priori of Sion, founded in 1099 according to Brown, was actually founded in the 1950s by a french political radical that has admitted that it was a hoax. Browns extensive research missed this pretty obvious fact, but if i'm not mistaken Brown actually admitted that he got this fact wrong.
When you make phony claims of historical accuracy its the duty of those with real knowledge to expose the author for what he is. Because of Dan Browns claims many people believe his book is historically accurate. There is nothing wrong in writing a book of fiction with some historical inaccuracies, but not when you make the ridiculouse claims that Brown does. He should just say his book is a work of fiction, but i guess his claims sells more books and gives him more attention.
Ou Be Low hoo
New Member
Pires2077 said:
My advice would be not to bother...all his books are trashy, over-rated and unoriginal.
True@1stLight
New Member
I agree with Raven on this point even though I'm not a Dan Brown fan. I'd at least give the DaVinci Code a shot, then go from there.
RaVeN
New Member
True@1stLight said:
Thank you. For the reason you've given, I know how much that must have hurt. But my point is it makes no difference if it's Dan Brown, The Bible, or the Autobiography of Elmer Fudd. If you have a desire to read it, then read it without feeling pressured by someone elses opinion.
RaVeN
Zolipara
New Member
Halo said:I agree - if you like the sound of a book, then read it; it's the only way you can form a true opinion. Don't let anyone else put you off because they didn't like it, you might think it's great. Everybody likes different authors and genres.
I could not agree more. Reviews etc can help you find the books you like, and avoid the books you probably wont like, but use them only as a guide. Reviews are always very subjective, and people have different tastes.
Ou Be Low hoo
New Member
RaVeN said:
Cry me a river! I gave the guy my advice, which is obviously loaded with my opinion...If anyone is so weak that they blindly follow what anyone tells them, then they should go and tell the nearest farmer they are ready to be sheared. I'm quite sure that the dude isn't going to base his opinion solely on what I said, so why the all the histrionics regarding choice!?!?!
I've read all of Dan Brown's novels (The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, Deception Point, and Digital Fortress). I thought that they were all the EXACT SAME THING! Granted, I think the common plot concepts they share are pretty fun but half-way through the third book I found it tedious since I had already read the same plot twice before. I've asked my family members who enjoy reading and they don't seem to agree with me and think they're all individually great. So I made a poll to see what other book lovers think. Please vote because I need the numbers to win a small bet. You don't need to register or any dumb things like that in order to vote. Thanks.
http://www.honest-opinions.com/opinion.php?id=97
http://www.honest-opinions.com/opinion.php?id=97
