I hate Dan Brown

Zaph

I have a friend who reads roughly one book every two years. When he does actually buy a book it's generally because there's excessive hype about the book and it's usually a no-brainer "airport" book. He is the most reliable indicator I have as to whether a book is worth reading or not - if he buys it, it ain't. Needless to say the last book he read was the Da Vinci Code.

funky penguin

Zillah wrote:

If you liked this book I hate you.

Thats rather harsh, dont you think....?

Shouldn't you hate the progenitor of the material, and not the victims? Even then, is it not their right to like the book?

funky penguin

Saint Something wrote:

Really? Coz when I read it I knew it was a fictional book... and so did the person that recommended it to me.
Did the author actually say this stuff is true?

He said in interviews that the religious rituals, sect, societies, etc were all true.

solo1

funky penguin wrote:

Thats rather harsh, dont you think....?

No.

funky penguin

Thats a compelling arguement.

Velvet Vocals

funky penguin wrote:

He said in interviews that the religious rituals, sect, societies, etc were all true.

Jesus... this guy's worse then I thought! Ok.. hands up... I did enjoy it when I read it. But I read it with my eyes wide open, knowing that it was what it was... a step up from pulp fiction, nothing more then a funny story.

Zillah wrote:

If you liked this book I hate you.

Is a bit harsh... but if you said if you read this book and believed all the nonsense in it and started looking for the grail (coz they're out there now looking for it) then, I HATE YOU!

Zillah

No one person should take offence at my comment. Consider it a slur directed at humanity as a whole...


My point is if people were smart enough to see through Dan Browne's attrocious writing style then he wouldnt be rolling in money and laughing at how he played the world for fools.

Velvet Vocals

Zillah wrote:

My point is if people were smart enough to see through Dan Browne's attrocious writing style then he wouldnt be rolling in money and laughing at how he played the world for fools.

Do you really think he's laughing at everyone coz he played them for fools, or is it just that he believes all this crap himself? I'm kinda leaning towards the latter, If he's prepared to say that he thinks all the stuff is true then maybe he really was trying to stir up things in the Catholic church... maybe he's laughing at the Vatican and not the general public... the public are just serving his end by being the drones that, lets face it, they are.

Obviously I don't include all of us fine people in that drone comment

I do believe that some of the societeis and sects portrayed within the book are real. They certainly bear similarities to some that i have read about.

On the topic of the book, it's a work of fiction, that was entrtaining even if it was badly written. I enjoyed the book for what it was, Jerry Bruckheimer on page. I have no interest in reading any of his other books, the two chapters of what ever book at the end of the Da Vinci Code were enough for me.

mycroft

I've said it before;

---

Possibly one of the most annoying books I've read, ever.

For starts I'm staggered by the amount of people who take what he wrote as Cannon, or fact.

The idea of this book is such a rip off of far superior work like Robert Anton Wilson's the Illumanti trilogy and Eco's "Focault's Pendenlum"

It breaks one of my cardinal rules of fiction (never buy any book which features the words, "beautiful, brilliant, and mathematican" as a character description"; see also film rules, JLO as a criminal psychologist )

I read it over a weekend while working, my girlfriend runs a 2nd hand bookshop, and got it for me, as I knew it would be quiet, I was staggered at how moronic and flimsy the plot was.

The only thing that made it worthwhile was the person who read it before me was so frustrated at the plodding plot that they took to writing sarcastic comments in the margin so:

when our intrepid hero a havard professor and his brilliant cryptographer sidekick take FOUR PAGES to figure out the 10 digit code to the Swiss Safe Deposit Box might in fact be the same 10 numbers the dead curator scrawled by his corpse,

I found "about ****ing time" scrawled next to the page. I swear it was the only thing that made that dreadful book worth reading.

Finally I found the book to be an enormous cop out. It makes no reference to the fact that the Grail could change the religious and political situation in the middle east, solve many of the issues that cause conflict between Muslims and Christians, and weaken the church considerately. Finally in case it offended right wing catholics it makes Opus Dei a pupper organisation for the evil villian instead of portraying it as it is a bloody sinister fascict catholic group.

Zillah

I love the smell of sane condemning criticism in the morning.


Did you also like when characters woudl occasionally say something like

"What a genius he must have been to come up with such a clue!! Absolute genius, what an incredible human being he must have been to think of something so clever!!"

mycroft

Zillah wrote:

I love the smell of sane condemning criticism in the morning.


Did you also like when characters woudl occasionally say something like

"What a genius he must have been to come up with such a clue!! Absolute genius, what an incredible human being he must have been to think of something so clever!!"

I've been drinking heavily since I read the book in the hope that I kill the brain cells that hold any memory of the book. Yes it's like using seveal tonnes of naplam to kill a spider, but I think it's a necessary evil.

Or the incredibly bad englishness of one of the characters.

Or that many of the chapters start with a recap of the last chapter! It's like i just read that, i know this It's like the recap at the start of an episode of batman, only half as well written.

I can remember very little of the story, which is extremely unlike me. The same thing happened with the Harry Potter books, of which I remember nothing. Maybe my subconscise has been barring all the painful memories of the wasted two hours spent reading both books. It's very weird I can recall almost every aspect of the Lord of the Rings and a dozen other books, but very little of the Da Vinvi code.

I hate the people who treat it like its fact. My cousins tole my mum to read it because it made them question their beliefs. When I told them it was a work of fiction they argued that it was all based on fact, which resulted in me argueing against them for about an hour. In the end I just gave up. How can people be so stupid?

Anyone else notice how the vast majority of people who believe its true are the same people who would talk down to you for reading Science Fiction? Most of which I might ad is far more likely than the Da Vinci Code.

I have a theory that the Da Vinci code was written by twelve monkes, on twelve type writers in one twelve hour period.

funky penguin

Deleted User wrote:

I have a theory that the Da Vinci code was written by twelve monkes, on twelve type writers in one twelve hour period.

[BURNS]It was the worst of times....it was the blurst of times?![/BURNS]

Zillah

funky penguin wrote:

[BURNS]It was the worst of times....it was the blurst of times?![/BURNS]

BAH! You stupid monkey!!

Oryx

If Dan Brown has monkeys working for him they are now very rich monkeys. Moral? Dont write well, write popular and controversial! Get the moslems or the catholic church to hate you, and sucess and riches await!

funky penguin

KatieK wrote:

If Dan Brown has monkeys working for him they are now very rich monkeys. Moral? Dont write well, write popular and controversial! Get the moslems or the catholic church to hate you, and sucess and riches await!

Along with political assassination!

mycroft

KatieK wrote:

If Dan Brown has monkeys working for him they are now very rich monkeys. Moral? Dont write well, write popular and controversial! Get the moslems or the catholic church to hate you, and sucess and riches await!

As pointed out the book stops well short of realising the implications of its theories re the reaction to its assertions. Stops short of condeming Opus Dei, and in fact protrays it in a vaguely sympatheitc light.

Rar thats sticking it to em. Christ as bad a book as the Satanic Verses was the muslim community got outraged enough to work out a fathwah. A couple of vocal tuts from the Catholic church is not a comparsion.

The book is about as contraversial as a episode of 7th heaven and less well written.

Zillah

mycroft wrote:

As pointed out the book stops well short of realising the implications of its theories re the reaction to its assertions. Stops short of condeming Opus Dei, and in fact protrays it in a vaguely sympatheitc light.

Rar thats sticking it to em. Christ as bad a book as the Satanic Verses was the muslim community got outraged enough to work out a fathwah. A couple of vocal tuts from the Catholic church is not a comparsion.

The book is about as contraversial as a episode of 7th heaven and less well written.

Nuts to all that! You put him in a league of criticism unsuited to his writing. Line by line it is infuriating and...painful, yes thats a good word for it, painful...

Shabadu

Do any of you read Private Eye? It's the English version of Pheonix, only properly satirical and much funnier.

They have a section called 'What you didn't miss...' inwhich they parody the crappy book they are reviewing in the style and manner the book is written in. The DaVinci code satire is absolutely spot on.

I am almost too full of disgust and rage at the idiocy of Dan Browne for believing this ill-researched tripe and writing it in such a patronising and nonsensical way.

There's no point in even bothering to begin pointing out everything that is wrong and crap with his writing style, and research methodology. It makes me bleed out of my ear when I even try to think about where to begin.


I keeeeeeeeeel j00 Dan Browne...

fenris

Try "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" by robert Leigh and the follow up "The messianic Legacy" instead, but don't get hung up on what is really just fluff, if it has any function it should be to stimulate more people to try a bit of critical thinking, the DaVinci Code is to be found in the fiction section after all.
Personally I am listening to it again as an www.audible.com" audio book, predictable yes (especially as it is a re-read :-) ) but it does serve to take my mind off of the idiots who leave cars that have driven up the outside of 2 lanes of queuing cars barge in front of them in Sandyford industrial estate.
Treat it a bit like brussel sprouts, you know that they are the devils veg. but you dont have to eat them unless you are starving or want to spend a boring x-mas afternoon farting while blaming the dog.

Propocus

Yes. I agree with most of the aforementioned.

In Deception Fortress, there is a bit like this "Susan thought with her
cryptological mind.......blah blah". I was amused more by the writing
then the story.

Having said that DVC was a good page-turner albeit accompanied by
DBs usual "writers ploy" of showing off how much he thinks he knows
about particular sects (The Rosicrucians - or in DF the ins and outs
of computer science - etc) through his characters.

But he did find a market didn't he....

Feenikusu

I've finished Digital Fortress yesterday and I really liked that book! It was pretty exciting and interesting, even if Dan Brown is not the best writer.
Deception Point was boring, but Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code were great, too! I enjoyed them very much, and for me that's the main point.

funky penguin

Thats a good point.

Capt'n Midnight

How does Digital Fortress compare to the film Sneakers, in terms of plausibility ?

funky penguin

What? Who said that?

*Angel*

KatieK wrote:

If Dan Brown has monkeys working for him they are now very rich monkeys. Moral? Dont write well, write popular and controversial! Get the moslems or the catholic church to hate you, and sucess and riches await!

Sadly that's true!

jmcc

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

How does Digital Fortress compare to the film Sneakers, in terms of plausibility ?

Some of the characters in Sneakers were composites of real people. One of the cryppies responsible for RSA did the maths slides. There is a hell of a lot of hacking in-jokes in the movie. To paraphrase the tag line of Sneakers - I could tell you but then... As for Digital Fortress - Dan Brown is a fscktard who probably thinks that ROT13 is a good cipher.

Regards...jmcc

fenris

True - we all know that double ROT13 is the way to go !

Capt'n Midnight

jmcc wrote:

Some of the characters in Sneakers were composites of real people. One of the cryppies responsible for RSA did the maths slides. There is a hell of a lot of hacking in-jokes in the movie. To paraphrase the tag line of Sneakers - I could tell you but then... As for Digital Fortress - Dan Brown is a fscktard who probably thinks that ROT13 is a good cipher.

Regards...jmcc

wow now I'm even more impressed with that film.