The Lost Symbol

[Haunted]

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....

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....

[JCamilo]

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.

[NickAdams]

"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

[Haunted]

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.

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.

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.

[kiki1982]

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:

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.

[Nietzsche]

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.

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

[JCamilo]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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)...

[Nietzsche]

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

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.

[blazeofglory]

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.

[Janine]

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.

[Haunted]

Got my copy and finished it.

"Amazing...Impossible to put down." Hails Janet Maslin from The New York Times. She's not alone.

I was hooked at the end of the first paragraph of the Da Vinci Code. The Lost Symbol took less than a paragraph — the first sentence grabbed me immediately. Terse, edgy. Something else entirely....

The first night I read until I almost passed out. I averaged about 4 hours of sleep each night. She's right. Impossible to put down.

The lost symbol is a secret word that unlocks ancient knowledge that's so potent, it's the apotheosis of man, giving one unimaginable powers.

Each page opens doors to ancient mysteries and symbolisms, mysticisms, alchemy, magic squares, cosmic consciousness and noetics (yeah, never heard of that either until I read the book). With a world of knowledge so vast and far-reaching, breathtaking chases are deftly matched by exciting intellectual pursuits.

The book delves into ancient origins of things hidden in plain sight to reveal layers upon layers of symbolic, transformative meanings. This makes The Lost Symbol an even greater thriller — the knowledge and wisdom one can learn from it is totally thrilling. And that, I realized, is why Janet Maslin finds the book so amazing.

From a scale of 1 to 10, I'll give it aya........33.

[Nietzsche]

I agree. It's a good read,entertaining and thought provoking even if it's not some immaculately written piece of work. But then again, isn't the standard for good literature invented anyway? Critics tend to be very prescriptive of what is good. If it's entertaining it's entertaining.

[Red-Headed]

After you read Foucault's Pendulum you will never look at anything by Brown again.

I've never read any of Brown's novels (I haven't had a lobotomy yet either) but Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco is superb. I can't recommend it enough.

Isn't the main protagonist of the Da Vinci Code a professor of semiotics like Eco in real life? *scratches chin* Is this a conspiracy?

Robert Anton Wilson & Umberto Eco did all of this better & with more flair & originality years before Brown.

[Haunted]

I've never read any of Brown's novels (I haven't had a lobotomy yet either)

Robert Anton Wilson & Umberto Eco did all of this better & with more flair & originality years before Brown.

How can you comment that Brown has less flair & originality, after just saying you've never read any of his novels?

Herd mentality?

[Red-Headed]

How can you comment that Brown has less flair & originality, after just saying you've never read any of his novels?

Herd mentality?

Probably. I don't have to read Harry Potter novels to know that I wouldn't like them either (not my demographic really as I am over seven years old). I have never read a Jeffrey Archer novel, but I am pretty sure they are rubbish. I have never read a Barbara Cartland novel. They are popular too. Life is far too short to read crap.

I have read a lot of novels in my life, before & after I went to university, I love literature.

I read a few pages of the Da Vinci Code, it didn't do anything for me, pot-boilers rarely do.

If I belong to the herd, it is the herd that likes good literature. I know this is all very subjective but Brown is an amateur compared to R.A. Wilson & Eco. He should at least admit where he pinched his material from.

Yes, I prefer my herd to the 'I love Brown' herd. As I said, I haven't had a lobotomy yet.