The Lost Symbol

Is anyone reading this when it comes out? I have it pre ordered.

I'm quite a fan of Dan Brown, though I realize he isn't the best in the genre of conspiracy fiction I find his books highly entertaining and I can get through them quickly.

For those criticizing his books on the historical inaccuracies, remember he is a FICTION writer, his books are not meant to be passed off as non-fiction. In the DaVinci Code there is that page saying all the secret societies, etc are real, but it is referring to the fact that the lost gospels, the priory of scion, existed, not that the story is true. The DaVinci Code is a fictional interpretation, and naturally facts are changed for the sake of a good story! Criticizing his books from the foreword is like criticizing Star Wars for it saying that it happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Of course it didn't. Or criticizing the Texas Chain Saw Massacre for saying it is based on a true story thought it is an extreme exaggeration inspired by several events.

That being said, from what I have read about the book it reminds me of National Treasure.. I read in an interview about the book, that The Lost Symbol was started before Brown even finished the DaVinci Code.


Also, I have heard that Umberto Eco was a big name in the religous conspiracy genre, and that his books are more in depth than Browns are, can anyone recommend a book to me? I also have heard, Umberto Eco was in turn pre-dated by the Illuminatus! Triology, are these books good?

What other books are in this genre, that I may enjoy? If someone can point out something just as riveting or more than Dan Brown, that would be great.

Dan Brown, himself, has said his books are meant to be thrillers and are strictly fiction. As far as Eco is concerned, we discussed one of his novels on this site a year or so ago...The Name of the Rose...that was quite good; I think you would enjoy it, if you read Dan Brown's novels and liked them; they both are in the historical fiction genre. You can locate the discussion here on the forum if you run it through search or if you can't find it ask any one of the moderators.

I'm a fellow Dan Brown fan. I read it backwards, Da Vinci Code first and then someone recommended Angels and Demons, saying it was even better. I couldn't put either one down. Just as you said the fiction is compelling.

Matt Lauer on NBC's Today did a series on the Lost Symbol last week, he showed the place in Washington DC where Dan Brown did his research, it's quite a sight! New York Times says the new book The Lost Symbol is "mind-blowing". Can't wait to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Also, I have heard that Umberto Eco was a big name in the religous conspiracy genre, and that his books are more in depth than Browns are, can anyone recommend a book to me? I also have heard, Umberto Eco was in turn pre-dated by the Illuminatus! Triology, are these books good?

---

Foucault's Pendulum destroys conspiracy theories. An outline of the plot of one of Brown's books is in chapter 65 (I think). I posted a review of FP here within the past year. After you read Foucault's Pendulum you will never look at anything by Brown again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

I'm a fellow Dan Brown fan. I read it backwards, Da Vinci Code first and then someone recommended Angels and Demons, saying it was even better. I couldn't put either one down. Just as you said the fiction is compelling.

Matt Lauer on NBC's Today did a series on the Lost Symbol last week, he showed the place in Washington DC where Dan Brown did his research, it's quite a sight! New York Times says the new book The Lost Symbol is "mind-blowing". Can't wait to read it.

---

I agree, I found Angels & Demons to be better than the DaVinci Code. It actually was writen before the DaVinci Code, despite it being flipped for the movie..

It's nice to meet some fellow dan brown fans, despite his popularity I havn't met many fans of him. Most i've met have never read him, or get anal about the historical fallacies in a fictional work, or think he's some sort of anti-christ (despite the fact Brown has said he hopes his works inspire discussion to strengthen faith)...

Have you guys read Digital Fortress or Deception Point? I have read all of his books, save Digital Fortress but I do own it and will read it shortly. I probably will read the Lost Symbol... I can't wait for the book. Tomorrow it is out (yay!)

My newspaper had an interview with Dan Brown, and the first few pages of the lost symbol as preview. It's going to be good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

I agree, I found Angels & Demons to be better than the DaVinci Code. It actually was writen before the DaVinci Code, despite it being flipped for the movie...

---

The Da Vinci Code was hugely successful, when all is said and done, 80 million copies were sold. Isn't that more copies sold than Michael Jackson's Thriller album?

With such popularity it's almost a guarantee that a movie will follow. It's probably then that they (publisher, literary agent, Hollywood people, etc. collectively) realized they can make a franchise out of Dan Brown, much like John Grisham and other great writers and storytellers. So next came the movie version of the previous book, Angels and Demons. And that's very good news for us Dan Brown fans.

I must admit I didn't see the DVC movie. One reason is, it came out not long after I read the book and I didn't want the movie to ruin it. I don't remember AAD now, so I'll see the movie when the DVD comes out.

I strongly recomend Foucault's Pendulum, it has already been mentioned, but I have to 2nd it, it is a brilliant and excellent book.

I would not call myself a Dan Brown fan per sae, but I read Angels & Demons and the DaVinci Code, becasue the subject matter was something of interest to me, and I do find they are entertaining thrillers to read.

I do not know much about his new book, but from what you said, it sounds like it could be interesting so I might look into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

I must admit I didn't see the DVC movie. One reason is, it came out not long after I read the book and I didn't want the movie to ruin it. I don't remember AAD now, so I'll see the movie when the DVD comes out.

---

The DaVinci Code movie was far closer to the novel than Angels & Demons was to its novel. DVD only cut out things that took up a lot of time and could be briefly put into another scene, and left out some details but nothing too major

Angels & Demons, while a great movie, left out many things and even changed a great portion. There are some characters in the book, not in the movie, and characters in the movie not in the book. The entire first segment of the book and movie are different, though most of it regarding the search for the clues is the same. Other than that, they are mostly separate artistic entities in the way Jurassic Park stands alone in comparison to Michael Crichton's novel.

I read The DaVinci Code when it was first published and I enjoyed the subject and the trivia, but found the characters and prose to be shallow. I thought the movie served the spirituality with a heavy hand, which is something I don't remember being mentioned in the book. I respected the book after that, but I have no intention of reading The Lost Symbol.

out of curiosity. I thought the movie was much better than the book. Somehow it didn't seems as shallow as the written word. Dan Brown's popularity stems from the fact that there are a lot more people out there that can read such trivia than there are tose who can read literature. If you want to read it, then do so. IMO, howver, it's a waste of time. I am a fast reader, and the book is not .long, so I satisfied my curiosity in a minimum of time. I wouldn't read another Dan Brown book.

There have been other writers who are very sorry at the writing craft, but who have attracted many readers. Ann Rice is one. And for the life of me, I can't understand the attraction that Ayn Rand has for some readers. Acually, reading Dan Brown is not such a waste of time as reading Ayn Rand since it takes much longer to read her books, although they are not much better.

I am a fan of Dan Brown. I read Digital Fortress first, then Da Vinci Code, followed by Angels and Demon, and Deception Point last. I will be collecting The Lost Symbol today. I think it is better to read the book first before watching the movie. For Da Vinci Code, too much details are left out in the movie. I think Angels and Demons is a more entertaining movie, and assuming that Rome and St Vatican really looks like what the movie protrays, it has been very educational for me who hasn't visited that part of Europe. Deception Point is the least entertaining among the four books, in my opinion, but that could be because I personally like stories on computer crimes, which is in Digital Fortress.

Wow, there seems to be so many Dan Brown fans coming out! Where were you guys when I made my Dan Brown bashing thread? Either way, not a very big fan of Dan Brown to say the least :D

Just read this review in the Mail on Sunday website

Meanwhile, Brown aficionados will be relieved to learn that his reputation as one of our foremost prose stylists looks set to endure: his innovative use of italics, soaring descriptive flights ("he wrapped the Kiryu silk robe around his naked, 6ft 3in body...") and feather-light moments of erudition ("Langdon knew that, etymologically, cravat actually derived from a ruthless band of 'Croat' mercenaries") are as beguiling as ever.

:eek:

I hope that the reviewer had his tongue firmly in cheek when he wrote that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thespian1975

Just read this review in the Mail on Sunday website

Meanwhile, Brown aficionados will be relieved to learn that his reputation as one of our foremost prose stylists looks set to endure: his innovative use of italics, soaring descriptive flights ("he wrapped the Kiryu silk robe around his naked, 6ft 3in body...") and feather-light moments of erudition ("Langdon knew that, etymologically, cravat actually derived from a ruthless band of 'Croat' mercenaries") are as beguiling as ever.

:eek:

I hope that the reviewer had his tongue firmly in cheek when he wrote that.

---

:lol:

I read, last week, in the Sunday Times culture magazine that Brown doesn't actually like novels. Despite being a writer he cannot stand fiction: 'One of the reasons I don't read fiction is because I can't really get through it.' He prefers reading books on symbols and history (surprise surprise).

Also, writing was not his first love (again, surprise); pop music was his juliet. Culture mag. informs that in 1993 Brown released an album titled Dan Brown which featured a song about phone sex called 976-Love. A year later came his next CD Angels and Demons (huh?) which had heavy religious themes and was unsuccessful.

Just thought I'd share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adagio

I read, last week, in the Sunday Times culture magazine that Brown doesn't actually like novels. Despite being a writer he cannot stand fiction: 'One of the reasons I don't read fiction is because I can't really get through it.' He prefers reading books on symbols and history (surprise surprise).

Also, writing was not his first love (again, surprise); pop music was his juliet. Culture mag. informs that in 1993 Brown released an album titled Dan Brown which featured a song about phone sex called 976-Love. A year later came his next CD Angels and Demons (huh?) which had heavy religious themes and was unsuccessful.

Just thought I'd share.

---

Adagio, thanks for this tidbit. I always think that the best writers are not writers: they are artists.

How Dan Brown feeds the Brain:
http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/58851/

Is it "priory of scion" or "Priory of Zion"?

While I don't think we should automatically reject an author because he or she is unapologetically "commercial."
I also don't believe we should use the term "literary stylist" lightly. I must confess I haven't taken the time to read Dan Brown's prose, but a family member whom I respect has read The DaVinci Code and informs me that his writing is unreadable -- not only is the narrator condescending, the descriptions are crammed with clichés. I have, however, seen Ron "Opie" Howard's movie version on television and found it mildly entertaining.

Among critics the rap against Dan Brown is that not only for his mediocre prose style but for his free-wheeling attitude toward theological history. Brown has been taken to task for his alleged "Catholic-bashing," although that alone isn't enough to devalue his work. The trouble is
his attitude toward religion in general. A New York Times columnist addresses this very issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/op...that.html?_r=1

Americans used to be taken to task for their tendency to be "cafeteria Catholics" --picking and choosing among the obligations to see which ones match their life style. Evidently Brown has this attitude toward all religions. If a person adopts such a wishy-washy attitude toward his or her core beliefs, how committed a Jew/Christian/Moslem/Buddhist et. al would he or she be?

Having read the "How Dan Brown Feeds the Brain" link above, I think that not only does Brown want to flatter his readers, he also is a child of the Feel-Good-About-Yourself generation, in which self-esteem is valued as the ultimate good. By contrast, the religion in which I was brought up
emphasized avoiding the "Sin of Pride," and that every soul starts out in a state of original sin. Otherwise, why would we need redemption?

I'm not an expert or a devotee in any way, but I remember of a few lines in the New Testament about "lukewarm" Christians -- God will "spit them out of His mouth."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

While I don't think we should automatically reject an author because he or she is unapologetically "commercial."

---

You're right. It would be irrelevant to criticize an author's prose style who has no interest in words beyond trivial or sensational implications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

... but a family member whom I respect has read The DaVinci Code and informs me that his writing
is unreadable -- not only is his narrator condescending, the descriptions are crammed with clichés.

---

I can confirm this. Most of the fun facts are given through narration and it was one of the popular things in the book, so they had to transfer it to the script somehow and the did so through dialogue *cringe*.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Ron "Opie" Howard's ...

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Among critics the rap against Dan Brown is that not only for his mediocre prose style but for his free-wheeling attitude toward theological history. Brown has been taken to task for his alleged "Catholic-bashing," although that alone isn't enough to devalue his work. The trouble is
his attitude toward religion in general.

---

I agree to an extent. It is true that an author, or whatever, could work through metaphor or synecdoche, but readers can also exploit what doesn't exist. I looked at the members of the conspiracy as individuals and not as if it was conspiracy that involved every Christian, or Catholic. It's like when a citizen (John Smith) is beaten by a police officer (John Doe) and Sharpton humanizes the victim, but exploits the situation by having the aggressor stand for an organization: "John Smith was brutally beaten by the (definite article) police."

Of course the Opus Dei is was made the conspiracy interesting, because anybody could have left Brown on the shelf and picked up Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Americans used to be taken to task for their tendency to be "cafeteria Catholics" --picking and choosing among the obligations to see which ones match their life style.

---

I've never heard the term "cafeteria Catholics"; is that your creation. It does extend past America, not to be defensive. There are numerous cases in South America of women, or young women, who would become Hester Prynne if they aborted a fetus that was conceived through rape and yet, two thieves are caught by villagers and forced to fight to the death. I don't know if that accurately illustrates my point, the fact that I'm writing this implies that I know it doesn't. ;)

everybody kept telling me to read the Da vinci code but I just have no longing to read it, read a few pages visiting my mom who loved it but didn't like what I read. then I saw the movie and liked it, saw angels and demons the other day and fell asleep, did not like it. very obvious who the bad guy was and no fun revelations or even interesting characters, the book may be better but I don't think I'll read it anytime soon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Is it "priory of scion" or "Priory of Zion"?

---

Priory of Sion

Ah, Dan Brown, the lovers and haters. I could easily stand bad prose if it had only an unpredictable plot. I wonder if there are any original popular artists out there; it seems people just go for the common and comfortable, and are frightened away from the original. I can understand liking a popular book, it's just the people that read only that and call it excellence that I fear for.
Variety is the spice of life...

We had to set up the stores at 5am this morning for the launch of the book. I tried to read Angels and Demons. Possible the worst written book i've ever tried to read.
But! I really enjoyed both movies.

I haven't read The DaVinci Code and I've seen the movie of Angels & Demons. So far after hearing about The Lost Symbol, it sound very interesting to read. I think it's because it's has themes about Washington and the Freemasons. I may read it then again I may not.

Well, he started his DaVinci Code with a lie, because the Priory of Zion was the biggest hoax and practical joke in history. It did not exist, it has never existed and it does not exist, only in the mind of a few history-mad people in France who dropped some documents with names on it in the national archives of France.

A BBC journalist traced the whole thing and came to a trio of totally unknown French men: one who had died (if I am right), one strange man living for history who was the 'spokesman' (even once gave an interview and all in the 80s. It looked very real!) and one man with a lot of money who liked to play practical jokes that cost a lot of money (he once claimed to have the Holy Grail in his garden in a cave and had loads of pilgrims before he actually told them it was all a laugh).

The secret organisations real...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three Sparrows

Ah, Dan Brown, the lovers and haters. I could easily stand bad prose if it had only an unpredictable plot. I wonder if there are any original popular artists out there;

---

What he/she said.

Also after reading the da vinci code and angels and demons i had the strong feeling that i've been reading the same book twice :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Well, he started his DaVinci Code with a lie, because the Priory of Zion was the biggest hoax and practical joke in history. It did not exist, it has never existed and it does not exist, only in the mind of a few history-mad people in France who dropped some documents with names on it in the national archives of France.

---

Lighten up. The DaVinci Code is a book of fiction and a thriller, no one ever said it's a true story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

Lighten up. The DaVinci Code is a book of fiction and a thriller, no one ever said it's a true story.

---

To be fair, I don't think people criticise Brown's books for being thrillers or lightweight but for his wretched prose. P G Wodehouse is not a serious writer: his novels are lightweight, comic stories about the English upper classes but his prose is superb. In fact he was one of the greatest writers of English prose in the 20th century. The English-British stand up comic (and Oxford graduate) Stewart Lee said that reading Dan Brown was like a wine taster destroying his taste buds with bleach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

To be fair, I don't think people criticise Brown's books for being thrillers or lightweight but for his wretched prose.

---

I was responding to someone who said the story was a lie, but that's why it's called fiction.

DVC was never written to be a literary work, I don't think. It's a thriller with high entertainment value. While anyone can appreciate beautifully and meticuloulsy crafted sentences, to read a thriller for fine prose is comparing apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

Lighten up. The DaVinci Code is a book of fiction and a thriller, no one ever said it's a true story.

---

It is not that I do not seeits value as a good thriller, although it is badly written as many others say too, but stting in the beginning that your story has a true backgound and listing that Priory is not really well-researched.

Dumas did his research much better in that sense.

But, may I ask, if it is clear that it is a thriller (i.e. faction) why is it that it was so controlversial? Clearly not everyone knew that it was fiction totally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

But, may I ask, if it is clear that it is a thriller (i.e. faction) why is it that it was so controlversial?

---

Virtually anything that touches on religion is controversial. Especially when it suggests that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene. And then there's the secret society conspiracy that names real people....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Clearly not everyone knew that it was fiction totally...

---

I don't know why some people didn't know. Clue: it says "a novel" on the cover of the book ;)

I'll attempt to offer an explanation...maybe because it's so steeped in facts, some people actually think it's real?

In fiction a writer can take as many artistic licenses, so deviation from facts is not capital offense. Besides, who knows what is really true anyway....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

Lighten up. The DaVinci Code is a book of fiction and a thriller, no one ever said it's a true story.

---

If Dan Brown was criticized only about it, but since people do not read well: he claimed the priory was real, even the thread starter here wrote something similar about them being real.
The problem of Dan Brown is quite simple, it is not lying (fiction and history are the same thing, but meh, why wasting my time explaning this) is lying badly. All of lies in literature, there was many, need some effort to be dismitificated, but Dan Brown didn't. He can not suggest anything, so he just write it out, thus it is easy to pick the mistakes.
You certainly should not confuse literary criticism with the criticism of Art specialist, etc. Those guys are, and have every right, to attack the historical mistakes. Literary critics may just point how obvious, painfully dull, not creative, etc his work is.

"I spent Friday evening with the Wells and went next morning to see Death on the Pale Horse. It is a wonderful picture, when West's age is considered; but there is nothing to be intense upon; no women one feels mad to kiss, no face swelling into reality. The excellence of every art is its intensity, capable of making all disagreeable evaporate, from their being in close relationship with beauty and truth--Examine King Lear and you will find this exemplified throughout; but in this picture we have unpleasantness without any momentous depth of speculation excited, in which to bury its repulsiveness." -- John Keats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The problem of Dan Brown is quite simple, it is not lying (fiction and history are the same thing, but meh, why wasting my time explaning this) is lying badly. All of lies in literature, there was many, need some effort to be dismitificated, but Dan Brown didn't. He can not suggest anything, so he just write it out, thus it is easy to pick the mistakes.

---

"Lying" is a very strong word not to be taken lightly. To say someone lie is an emotional and accusatory statement, and usually the speaker feels personal and is mad. Why would anyone feel so antagonistic about a bestselling author, unless it's because he's a bestselling author? ;)

Lying is behavioral, it implies concealing the truth with the intent to deceive. I just don't see Dan Brown lying. If anything, his books expose secret societies that are hidden in plain sight.

So rather than saying an author "lies", maybe we can just reference "historical inconsistencies" in the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

fiction and history are the same thing, but meh, why wasting my time explaning this

---

hmm I don't think so. History documents events that happened. Fiction is making up a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

You certainly should not confuse literary criticism with the criticism of Art specialist, etc. Those guys are, and have every right, to attack the historical mistakes. Literary critics may just point how obvious, painfully dull, not creative, etc his work is.

---

I majored in literature and have read a lot of literature for school. But when I went home from school, I read stuff like Stephen King, etc, and the Godfather remains one of my favorites. That said, I would never mix genres and critique these books for their literary values, because, they never claim any literary chops and I didn't read them for their literary brilliance.

Another example. One wouldn't accuse horror movies like the Saw for its profound transcendental meaning. So my point is, DVC is a thriller. It never pretends to be a literary work and to try to find beautiful prose in such is a mission of futility. Not that I agree that the prose is bad, I don't even have an opinion, because I never paid attention to the prose. I was so drawn into the story and it was a heck of a thrill ride.

For books of this genre, I think there could be a good and healthy discussion on plot and characterization and technique, but to nikpick it's prose is barking up the wrong tree.

Expose hidden societies that are normally not seen??

It certainly did not expose the Priory, beause that has never existed. And as for Opus Dei, well, it is a public secret that it exists... If you know what I mean.

There is nothing wrong with historic fiction. It has been done before, even inthriller form: Dumas, Scott and Pushkin the best known authors, but they did not try to disclose anything. They took a historic background, possibly some problems of the times and then made a story with fictional characters moving inside that. Some historical inaccuracies do exist in Dumas who makes certain characters 20 years older than they were for real or uses oldfashioned theories (although at the time they were approved by scholars or memoires); some inaccuracies exist in Scott who sets the Saxon-Norman conflict much too late in his Ivanhoe, but, au fond, these things have been there and were true at some point. They never asserted to expose secrets.

About The Da Vinci Code we cannot say this because it was based upon a work that has been long discredited as being untrue. Now we all claim that 'it is fiction' and 'it is not supposed to be true', but he stars his book with:

Quote:

---

Fact:

The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organisation. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo Da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion and a dangerous practice known as 'corporal mortification'. Opus Dei has just completed construction of a 47million [dollar] National Headquarters at 243 Lexinton Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

---

Now, the Priory of Sion never existed and it was the greatst hoax of the 20ieth century. He is quite right aout Opus Dei, though.

But unless he was doing what Defoe did in his Robenson Crusoe: 'it is true what I am writing here although it is plain it is not, but I have to tell the people it is true because that is the convention otherwise they will get cross', Brown is not accurate in his facts.

As 'all descriptions of art [and] architecture' are true, is it then a coincidence that they become mad in the Louvre of the people who are looking for the secret door? And is it also coincidence that in Italy they are driven mad by tourists who are lookng for this one line or sculpture that is not even there in a certain church?

So two alledged 'facts' that can be proven not to be true.

As I was saying:

Either Dan Brown decided to do the Defoe-thing and write 'fake truth' and that is WAY past its time as that stopped in about the middle of the 19th century at the latest (the genre lost its appeal already in the early years of that century). Or he has got us all believing in something that is not true, or maybe even worse, something that he himself believes...

Fiction, yes, with reservations.

Though I do enjoy Browns books very much, I will say that his writing seems very forced. I read in an earlier post that he doesn't even like fiction, I guess that explains that about his writing. But, the fact his books are easy to quickly read are one of the things I enjoy about them. Sure, his writing isn't incredibly deep but it is entertaining to those who find the topics he writes about fun, and isn't overly critical. I'm a college student, to those of us who have other things to do, read, and study a quick but entertaining read can be a gift.

One thing that I don't like is the formulated use of Robert Langdon's claustrophobia. It never seems to really be there for anything but having a few extra sentences in the stories.

Part of the enjoyment I get from Dan Brown's novels is researching everything in them. Of course, it's not going to all be true but when you go read the facts about things such as the apocryphal gospels, illuminate, Freemasons, Opus Dei, and so forth, you can learn a lot. The problem is people treat the words in his books as facts; either thinking every word he says is true or they think he is trying to topple religion. That is annoying.

As far as being critical of his style, of course he has faults and not everyone will like reading it. You don't have to read something incredibly masterfully written to be entertained by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Either Dan Brown decided to do the Defoe-thing and write 'fake truth' and that is WAY past its time as that stopped in about the middle of the 19th century at the latest (the genre lost its appeal already in the early years of that century). Or he has got us all believing in something that is not true, or maybe even worse, something that he himself believes...

Fiction, yes, with reservations.

---

I think the "truth" in his books, as I said before, is just more or less an "attention grabber" like the based on a true story taglines for movies that are terribly inaccurate to the real event. The way I read things, it is more the story as I see it in my mind that I am entertained by, than the actual wording itself, when I read fiction that is.

Anyway, I can answer if he believes the stuff he writes about. Taken from a newspaper interview when asked if he was a conspiracy theorist, he said "not in any way shape or form. I am much more a skeptic. I don't believe in UFOS or the world is coming to an end in 2012. I think one of the reason my books have found mainstream success is that they're written from a skeptical point of view. My protagonist, Robert Langdon, doesn't buy into any of it. " -- from the September 13, 2009 issue of Parade, Page 5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

"Lying" is a very strong word not to be taken lightly. To say someone lie is an emotional and accusatory statement, and usually the speaker feels personal and is mad. Why would anyone feel so antagonistic about a bestselling author, unless it's because he's a bestselling author? ;)

---

Pssst, the Paulocoelhism wont work. I did said nothing negative about lying, to imagine I am having anything emotional about lies. In fact, I said both sides - good or not - lie. Maybe I was just quoting Flaubert, who called art a lie. But why not writing back to him to ask about his emotions? Usually we should convey the interpretation of the text by its whole, not by suppositions of the emotional state of someone too far away.

Quote:

---

Lying is behavioral, it implies concealing the truth with the intent to deceive. I just don't see Dan Brown lying. If anything, his books expose secret societies that are hidden in plain sight.

---

This is funny. Lying is behavioral? Albeit he lies (not exactly in the book) when he proposed himself to debate the specialists and claim to have studied all the "facts" which the fiction is based. However, that was not what I impplied with Lies, but the hidden in palin sight secret societies are funny beyond measurement.

Quote:

---

hmm I don't think so. History documents events that happened. Fiction is making up a story.

---

mwah, in several idioms, portuguese included there is not even a different word for History and Story. I would suggest you to remember the father of History is Herodotus and he told Medeia story also. We may remember, this is Umberto Eco, that Marco Polo was called to write a fantasy for the descriptions of real and exotic animals and accepted as truly when describing the mystical beings. I would also point Flaubert again and his claim that Mdme. Bovary was not realistic, but an attack to reality. Or Magic Realism and Jorge Luis Borges. Obviously, History is just a Story told that people believe to be true.

Quote:

---

I majored in literature and have read a lot of literature for school. But when I went home from school, I read stuff like Stephen King, etc, and the Godfather remains one of my favorites. That said, I would never mix genres and critique these books for their literary values, because, they never claim any literary chops and I didn't read them for their literary brilliance.

---

I wonder if you would make critics to those books because their health qualities? Or how good looking they are? I find funny (I do not mind if you studied anything, it is irrelevant) but if you know they do not claim literary chops how to testify this? You just believe in what they say? I find irrelevant if you like those books and enjoy them, but there is no reason, tongue in check, to believe any book should not be analysed by a literary critic just because the author can defend himself like this to the critics he may receive or worst, because people enjoy it. Newsflash, Dickens, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Stevenson and lots of other are fun, they were enteiteiment and they survive the critics. So, what makes Stephen King or Mario Puzo so special ? The fact that a book you may like for reasons that should be your own will be destroyed by someone else? The same way I do not tell you how to read and what to read, you should not do the same.

Quote:

---

For books of this genre, I think there could be a good and healthy discussion on plot and characterization and technique, but to nikpick it's prose is barking up the wrong tree.

---

Funny, because plot and characterization is approaching with a critical analyse. And You think, but I think you can not approach from a literary work without the language, because it is the so called technique. Because this genre is not new, historical thrillers are done by several authors (Dumas, Hugo, Dickens, Mark Twain, and who else)...

Ha, who would have guessed i'd spark such a debate. You people get worked up too easily :smash::smash:

Has anyone bought the book?

I got and and have started, it is pretty good. It follows the same formula as you can always expect (cheers for redundancy!) mentioning Langdon's claustrophobia and his mickey mouse watch... I can see why one might criticize his writing for that, but the story is pretty enjoyable! So far, I think it is better than the DaVinci Code, I liked Angels & Demons better than the DaVinci Code and so far I like The Lost Symbol more as well.

I have read the Da Vinci Code and was amazed at what I read notwithstanding his widespread criticism at the time. He was quoted as a poor writer with poor style.

He earned massively and envied many writers and critics. Despite loads of criticisms leveled against his book and some critics had criticized to the degree of having eroded from the domain of good literature.

Who cares? So what if a handful of critics and unsuccessful jealous writers are critical of his writing. His book is a grand success,the title is also stunningly appealing that intensifies curiosity and wonder.

Why should I read Joyce if Brown is appealing if not intellectually and stylistically as palatable as Milton or Shakespear.

I want to read this fifth novel of him, and am waiting impatiently for it in my city where new books arrive too late.

Today we live in a world of re-mixes and where great books, I mean commercially successful come from small and mediocre writers. They are often quoted as having plagiarized or copy-pasted.

So what if they hook your mind to a world that is different from yours and can give you a range of adventures at a little price. Of course his books are entertaining the majority who are distant from academia.

blazeofglory, there is another thread on this same subject - look for...The Lost Symbol...thread. There has been a lot of discussion on the book and Dan Brown's other books in that thread. You may want to check it out.