The Da Vinci Code V.S. Angels and Demons

[Real Great Idea]

Which was better: The Da Vinci Code.....or Angels and Demons? And which would you read first, even though Angels is a prequil to Da Vinci Code?

 

[mama-sama]

I liked Angels and Demons much better. I don't really think it's a prequil to The DaVinci Code though. The whole concept is totally different. But another by Dan Brown is Deception Point. That was also fairly good.

 

[cent]

Angels and Demons was a lot better IMO.

 

[eyez0nme]

Both are crap.

 

[-Carlos-]

Both are crap.

Both are crap. But of the two A&D is the best one.

 

[mama-sama]

Both are crap.

Not apparently to the general public. The guy made millions of dollars, not to mention a crappy movie about the book. I'm tired of hearing people bash Dan Brown. It's pretentious of you, eyezOnme. He was smart enough to know how to hype up his book. Can you say the same? That's something.

So I assume you read them - if not from the first to the last page - then at least the first 1 or 2 chapters to be able to say "Both are crap"?

Well, as usual, you're entitled to your opinion but so am I. I thought they were very entertaining for a fast read.

 

[Peronel]

Stewart, you getting in on this?

Gun to my head, I'd say A&D, possibly because I knew less about the Vatican and related topics than the subject matter of TDVC.

But you know,I may just be jabbering because of the gun pointed at my head. I could just as easily say "French toast, please."

 

[Stewart]

Not apparently to the general public.

Who, for the most part, don't read. Or read one book a year.

The guy made millions of dollars, not to mention a crappy movie about the book.

I think you'll find that Ron Howard made the crappy movie based on the book.

I'm tired of hearing people bash Dan Brown.

I'm not.

It's pretentious of you, eyezOnme.

I don't understand why you would think it pretentious to bash Dan Brown. He isn't a good novelist and therefore must take the criticism of his work on the chin. Consider the money made as compensation for the glut of negativity his books have attracted for their general amateurish content. I don't like people using the word pretentious. It gives nothing away about the book.

He was smart enough to know how to hype up his book. Can you say the same?

I don't believe Brown had much of a say in hyping up his book. That's what the marketing department of a publisher is generally employed to do.

Also, why would eyez0nme want to hype up Dan Brown's book? Of course he can't say the same. He didn't like them. Ergo they weren't worth hyping in the first place.

Or are you suggesting that there's a link between reading and writing? That to think a book is crap that eyez0nme must first write a book is a ludicrous suggestion.

So I assume you read them - if not from the first to the last page - then at least the first 1 or 2 chapters to be able to say "Both are crap"?

While I can't speak for eyes0nmen I can certainly say that I read The Da Vinci Code from the first to last page and I can confirm that I thought it crap. My review is somewhere around.

 

[abecedarian]

As I'm about half-way through Foucault's Pendulum, the thought keeps occuring, 'Dan Brown wishes he could write like Umberto Eco when he grows up.'

 

[beer good]

As I'm about half-way through Foucault's Pendulum, the thought keeps occuring, 'Dan Brown wishes he could write like Umberto Eco when he grows up.'

I kind of doubt that, actually. I think Dan Brown is well aware that well-written books with actual thought behind them would scare off half his readers.

 

[abecedarian]

I kind of doubt that, actually. I think Dan Brown is well aware that well-written books with actual thought behind them would scare off half his readers.

You don't think that just once, he'd like to offer his readers something as delicious as Foucault's Pendulum? Sad..Of course, then his readers would just figure he'd had someone ghost write the book...

 

[mama-sama]

Ah Stewart, it looks like I've churned up the pot a bit. And I know I would never win an argument with you. You're much more "well read" and academic than I am. I'll admit I would never do well on a debate team.

1. I read way more than one book a year and, still, I liked Dan Brown's books.
2. I KNOW that Ron Howard made the movie. Too bad it couldn't have been adapted better to the screen.
3. Why not have a "Let's bash Dan Brown" thread, since you never tire of hearing about it.
4. My point to EyezOnme was that he made a general statement ("Both are crap") and basically walked away. Back it up. Why? Why are they both crap? Making a general statement without backing it up IS pretentious and pompus.
5. If the marketing department of the publisher didn't hype-up his book, I'm fairly certain he would have gone somewhere else.
6. You said "I don't like people using the word pretentious. It gives nothing away about the book". What the hell does that mean? I called EyezOnme pretentious - not the book. Explain.
7. I never suggested there's a link between reading and writing. I'm not an idiot! What I was suggesting is that most writers would give their right arm to have gotten the publicity (and money) for a book such as Dan Brown has. Isn't that one reason why writers write - to be published and make money?

 

[Stewart]

1. I read way more than one book a year and, still, I liked Dan Brown's books.

That's not a bad thing. You enjoyed them.

2. I KNOW that Ron Howard made the movie. Too bad it couldn't have been adapted better to the screen.

I've not seen the movie and have no desire to. Although I know that one day it's going to be on normal telly and I'll succumb.

3. Why not have a "Let's bash Dan Brown" thread, since you never tire of hearing about it.

There's plenty. They all have his name in them.

4. My point to EyezOnme was that he made a general statement ("Both are crap") and basically walked away. Back it up. Why? Why are they both crap? Making a general statement without backing it up IS pretentious and pompus.

It may have been pompous, but I fail to see how it was pretentious. eyez0nme's comment was his own opinion; it wasn't a forced comment, it had no intention of being something other than what it was, it wasn't exaggerated the crapness of Brown. I would call it a frustrating response, rather than a pretentious one, since it's no doubt honest but just lacks expansion.

5. If the marketing department of the publisher didn't hype-up his book, I'm fairly certain he would have gone somewhere else.

His job is to churn out books as per the terms of his contract, whether it be a two, three, four, or more book contract. For that he'll get his advance and then, as the royalties come in, he'll pay off the advance and then start making profit from his books. But, his first three novels weren't making a splash at all. You'd struggle to find someone who had heard of Dan Brown. So, with the fourth novel, The Da Vinci Code, the sales expected weren't anywhere near the phenomenal numbers we're hearing quoted. He'd be just waiting to rake in whatever royalties he made. The publisher, on the other hand, would be the ones investing in the marketing and the buck would start and stop with them whether they were able to make the book profitable or not. Brown wouldn't have much input and he certainly wouldn't be able to walk without negotiating an end to his contract.

6. You said "I don't like people using the word pretentious. It gives nothing away about the book". What the hell does that mean? I called EyezOnme pretentious - not the book. Explain.

In that case, it says nothing about eyez0nme. It just means that I see it as a bit of unnecessary slating of someone because you either don't understand them or their work and are not willing to try. (I once heard someone in my workplace rhyme off a number of crime thrillers that she liked and then, on the subject of The God Of Small Things, call Arundhati Roy pretentious because she was writing about people and stuff and she found it boring. So you found Roy a boring read: how does that make her pretentious?)

7. I never suggested there's a link between reading and writing. I'm not an idiot! What I was suggesting is that most writers would give their right arm to have gotten the publicity (and money) for a book such as Dan Brown has. Isn't that one reason why writers write - to be published and make money?

In that case, it was the way you wrote it. The "Can you say the same?" made it clear that you intended a parallel. You were suggesting that writers may be interested in the money and publicity of the book but I don't see where, in the conversation leading up to it, there is a natural branch leading into it.

Anyway, let's get back to discussing the merits of Angels And Demons over The Da Vinci Code, or vice versa. As far as I'm aware, The Da Vinci Code is a carbon copy of Angels And Demons in that they are around the same length, begin the same, proceed the same, and are full of errata. (Brown's wife, as it happens, does all his 'research'.)

 

[mama-sama]

Anyway, let's get back to discussing the merits of Angels And Demons over The Da Vinci Code, or vice versa. As far as I'm aware, The Da Vinci Code is a carbon copy of Angels And Demons in that they are around the same length, begin the same, proceed the same, and are full of errata. (Brown's wife, as it happens, does all his 'research'.)

I'll agree with you on one point. EyezOnme may not have been pretentious. But the remark was certainly pompus.

Back to the original thread. I do agree that they are written much the same way. But I found Angels and Demons and Deception Point to be more interesting, more suspenseful.
But here's a thought. I've read quite a few long series. Each book taking up where the previous one left off, adding new characters and including old ones. But, yet, I love reading series. The writing is the same, the length, they usually begin the same and proceed the same. But, as in Dan Brown's books, the plot is different. Is that the criteria for a crappy book?
Or do you just not like his writing style, his subject matter, his character development?

 

[Stewart]

I've read quite a few long series. Each book taking up where the previous one left off, adding new characters and including old ones. But, yet, I love reading series. The writing is the same, the length, they usually begin the same and proceed the same. But, as in Dan Brown's books, the plot is different.

I don't necessarily think you can refer to Dan Brown's Langdon novels as a series since they can be read in any order and, other than the central character, have no common references.

I will concede that I'm not a reader of series. I gave that up after The Famous Five. But if I were to read them, then I'd want to see recurring characters, issues leading from one story to the next, a character that grows emotionally as life beats them down and picks them up, only to throw them down again.

I got the feeling from The Da Vinci Code that whatever happened in Angels And Demons was completely irrelevant. As far as Mr Cardboard himself, Robert Langdon was concerned, events in his first novel appearance never happened.

Is that the criteria for a crappy book?

No.

Or do you just not like his writing style, his subject matter, his character development?

Subject matter is an irrelevant issue as I'm happy to read books about anything. As I've said before, on countless Dan Brown threads, it's that his prose is extraordinarily clunky (sometimes making little sense), his powers of description are limited to irrelevancies (thinking of a passing building in which he wastes paper telling us an info dump about its history) and don't further the story, and his characters are cartoon versions of real people. That, and the volume of errata that I spotted (and missed) within.

 

[Tallulah]

I've not seen the movie and have no desire to. Although I know that one day it's going to be on normal telly and I'll succumb.

Only, and I mean ONLY, watch the film if you are suffering sever insomnia. My friend insisted we saw it at the cinema. I've still not seen it, I fell asleep about 30 minutes in.

Angels and Demons was the better of the twop, however neither were particularly outstanding, and there are far better authors using the same sort of subject matter to a much greater quality. I also blame Dan Brown for not being able to walk into Waterstones without tripping over a glut of books bearing a quote from some obscure paper somewhere or either declaring so and so to be "the next Dan Brown" or the "intellectuals' DaVinci code".

 

[steffee]

I don't despise Dan Brown nearly as much as other members of this forum (the elitist ones ) but I do find it hard to imagine anyone reading both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. They are exactly the same book. I'd heard that of them prior to beginning the second of his I attempted (Angels and Demons) and figured that the negative comments were exaggerated, but truly, they're not. I couldn't believe that Dan Brown didn't try and sue himself for plagiarism, or something, for he would have won. Surely there should be some law against duplicating the exact same story under two different titles.

So I don't have a preference for either of the two, but would suggest reading either of the two titles he has for the same story.

Saying that, I learned something from reading The Da Vinci Code. I didn't know anything of the material he covered (albeit badly researched) and had never read a novel written that way before, so I was glad I read it. But as abc and others have pointed out, there is far better writing out there (though I appreciate that's another thread - and let's face it, there are hundreds of them, here and elsewhere, discussing this).

 

[mama-sama]

Now I remember what it was about Dan Brown's books that intrigued me. They were written in real time. I don't think I ever read a book written in real time before. And I think that's why it didn't adapt well to the big screen.

 

[Stewart]

And Robert Langdon is no Jack Bauer.

 

[mama-sama]

So are we talking about TV now?