I'm posting this discussion as its own thread because I've seen a lot of visceral hatred of Dan Brown and all things appurtenant thereto, and I frankly don't understand it.
From what I can tell, people hate Dan Brown for one of the following reasons:
1. He writes fiction but pretends that some of it is true or based in truth
2. He plays on the ignorance of the general populace to sell books
or
3. He slanders the Roman Catholic Church and traditional Christianity.
Let's take these points in reverse order:
Allegations of Slandering Christianity
First of all, this point shouldn't be relevant in modern society. Enough books, movies and television shows have been made that are far more slanderous or libelous from a standpoint of faith than Dan Brown's little books. The Last Temptation of Christ is just as unorthodox, The Jesus Mysteries claim that there was no historical Jesus and your standard Jack Chick comic strip is more rabidly anti-Catholic than the lot just mentioned. Furthermore, Dan Brown's notion about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is simply a regurgitation of ideas and beliefs that were around in 300 AD (with the exception of the Merovingian bloodline claims, which are just silly). Regardless, given the composition of this website, I don't think this is the primary reason your average RAFhOle doesn't like Dan Brown.
Allegations Dan Brown Uses Ignorance to His Advantage
Good for him! People who choose to remain ignorant deserve a good fleecing every now and then. Furthermore, I don't see how Dan Brown in this regard is different from thousands of writers who print books for the gullible public which are NOT in novel form but which purport to "document" alien encounters, seances with spirits, the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, hollow earth theories, Illuminati conspiracies and the like. Dan Brown does admit that his book is a work of fiction. He isn't like John Edward, who claims he can speak with dead people for money, or even like your garden variety psychic or astrologer, the vast majority of whom are almost certainly quacks.
Allegations Dan Brown passes off Fiction as Fact
Basically, from what I can tell, the problems that people have in this regard is that he states that the Priory of Sion is centuries old, when in fact it is clearly not, or a few other points like that. The simple fact is that a lot of the material that he references to make his work of fiction are really in existence. I own a critical edition of the Nag Hammadi library in English and Coptic and there is indeed a Gnostic text where Jesus and Mary Magdalene are said to be more than just friends and that they would kiss one another in front of the disciples. There is a gnomon in St. Sulpice.
Yes, Brown misstates some things and exaggerates the importance of other things. On the other hand, how is he different from virtually ever writer of fiction out there? Hell, let's take an example of a movie that I like - The Mummy with Brendan Fraser. As someone with a love of Egypt, the film is about maybe 2% accurate in its portrayal of Egypt (if that). The sequel was even worse, though admittedly some of the errors that I found the grossest were the result of the studios asking Egyptologists about constructed original forms for words rather than New Kingdom vocalizations, which led to silly pronunciations like "yamun" for what should have been "aman" (indeed, the Amarna Letters confirm this pronunciation and scholars have written that there is no dispute about this pronunciation, nor has there been for over 50 years).
The point is that I'm used to this in entertainment.
What am I missing?
From what I can tell, people hate Dan Brown for one of the following reasons:
1. He writes fiction but pretends that some of it is true or based in truth
2. He plays on the ignorance of the general populace to sell books
or
3. He slanders the Roman Catholic Church and traditional Christianity.
Let's take these points in reverse order:
Allegations of Slandering Christianity
First of all, this point shouldn't be relevant in modern society. Enough books, movies and television shows have been made that are far more slanderous or libelous from a standpoint of faith than Dan Brown's little books. The Last Temptation of Christ is just as unorthodox, The Jesus Mysteries claim that there was no historical Jesus and your standard Jack Chick comic strip is more rabidly anti-Catholic than the lot just mentioned. Furthermore, Dan Brown's notion about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is simply a regurgitation of ideas and beliefs that were around in 300 AD (with the exception of the Merovingian bloodline claims, which are just silly). Regardless, given the composition of this website, I don't think this is the primary reason your average RAFhOle doesn't like Dan Brown.
Allegations Dan Brown Uses Ignorance to His Advantage
Good for him! People who choose to remain ignorant deserve a good fleecing every now and then. Furthermore, I don't see how Dan Brown in this regard is different from thousands of writers who print books for the gullible public which are NOT in novel form but which purport to "document" alien encounters, seances with spirits, the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, hollow earth theories, Illuminati conspiracies and the like. Dan Brown does admit that his book is a work of fiction. He isn't like John Edward, who claims he can speak with dead people for money, or even like your garden variety psychic or astrologer, the vast majority of whom are almost certainly quacks.
Allegations Dan Brown passes off Fiction as Fact
Basically, from what I can tell, the problems that people have in this regard is that he states that the Priory of Sion is centuries old, when in fact it is clearly not, or a few other points like that. The simple fact is that a lot of the material that he references to make his work of fiction are really in existence. I own a critical edition of the Nag Hammadi library in English and Coptic and there is indeed a Gnostic text where Jesus and Mary Magdalene are said to be more than just friends and that they would kiss one another in front of the disciples. There is a gnomon in St. Sulpice.
Yes, Brown misstates some things and exaggerates the importance of other things. On the other hand, how is he different from virtually ever writer of fiction out there? Hell, let's take an example of a movie that I like - The Mummy with Brendan Fraser. As someone with a love of Egypt, the film is about maybe 2% accurate in its portrayal of Egypt (if that). The sequel was even worse, though admittedly some of the errors that I found the grossest were the result of the studios asking Egyptologists about constructed original forms for words rather than New Kingdom vocalizations, which led to silly pronunciations like "yamun" for what should have been "aman" (indeed, the Amarna Letters confirm this pronunciation and scholars have written that there is no dispute about this pronunciation, nor has there been for over 50 years).
The point is that I'm used to this in entertainment.
What am I missing?
As someone who mainly hates him in part because of the "he pretends he is writing fiction when it suits him, and facts when that suits him", I should probably reply. I would be fine with shitty fiction. People can read it if they want to throw their lives away. It is sad, but there it is. But. He goes out of his way to keep people ignorant. If he said "I took some stuff, couldn't be bothered to actually check my facts, because, you know, I don't have that kind of respect for my readers; and then I lumped it together with some two-dimensional characters in a semi-predictable plot", I would be fine with that.
But he only says "this is fiction" whenever someone confronts him with all his facts being wrong. I have seen him sit on National Geographic saying "this is Truth (apart from the two-dimensional characters, which was all my sad excuse for a brain could muster)" (he may not have actually said the bit in the paranthesis). THAT annoys me.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Why is it that so many people hate Dan Brown?
14/09/2009 09:24:31 PM
- 2296 Views
His prose is bad. Very bad.
14/09/2009 09:28:28 PM
- 1150 Views
It's not any worse than Robert Jordan's prose. I'd say it's better, in fact.
14/09/2009 09:30:17 PM
- 1022 Views
Re: It's not any worse than Robert Jordan's prose. I'd say it's better, in fact.
14/09/2009 09:32:44 PM
- 1177 Views
In defense of italics...
14/09/2009 11:58:35 PM
- 1098 Views
Re: In defense of italics...
15/09/2009 08:02:56 AM
- 1118 Views
Thereby...
15/09/2009 10:31:44 PM
- 1058 Views
I have a problem with comparing those italics.
15/09/2009 10:33:53 PM
- 1060 Views
Oh probably
15/09/2009 10:40:15 PM
- 1074 Views
Hehe
15/09/2009 10:42:23 PM
- 1144 Views
In defense of nothing in particular...
15/09/2009 11:16:09 PM
- 1143 Views
Ah. Leroux did publish it as a serial in magazine first so that makes sense. *NM*
15/09/2009 11:19:40 PM
- 505 Views
Jordan didn't have the good sense TO FINISH ANY FUCKING PLOT THREAD
15/09/2009 04:46:06 AM
- 1043 Views
Wow, the vehemence.
15/09/2009 05:55:38 AM
- 1069 Views
Riddle me this, Batman - if he weren't dying, would he have even done that? *NM*
15/09/2009 01:53:57 PM
- 607 Views
Yes.
15/09/2009 03:38:34 PM
- 1056 Views
Re: Jordan didn't have the good sense TO FINISH ANY FUCKING PLOT THREAD
15/09/2009 08:05:26 AM
- 1077 Views
His attitude to history isn't really any different from that of most writers
15/09/2009 01:54:55 PM
- 1042 Views
I vehemently disagree with this!
14/09/2009 09:33:05 PM
- 1328 Views
How many chapters of Aes Sedai dresses and horse names did we go through in his books?
15/09/2009 04:45:04 AM
- 1083 Views
I'd have a slow moving plot to fast moving nonsense any day.
15/09/2009 05:36:20 AM
- 1137 Views
With Jordan, that movement was glacial
15/09/2009 01:58:08 PM
- 1031 Views
So plot progression is all that matters? What about the other stuff I mentioned? *NM*
15/09/2009 04:50:06 PM
- 483 Views
Jordan's characters are just as two-dimensional as Brown's
16/09/2009 02:17:19 AM
- 991 Views
Bull...
16/09/2009 03:15:49 AM
- 1042 Views
No, I think you're just blinded by liking WoT
17/09/2009 03:00:28 PM
- 1006 Views
No, you seem to be blinded by disliking him, more like.
17/09/2009 06:25:21 PM
- 1023 Views
It's not hyperbole.
17/09/2009 08:13:47 PM
- 1044 Views
Yes, it is, and you're really going to have to back your stance up with arguments.
17/09/2009 09:21:56 PM
- 1067 Views
Yeah like that's not the case with you and Dan Brown.
17/09/2009 06:56:37 PM
- 1069 Views
Because he is shit?
14/09/2009 09:38:59 PM
- 1281 Views
Camilla, you've read shit before and liked it.
15/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
- 1057 Views
Re: Camilla, you've read shit before and liked it.
15/09/2009 08:04:18 AM
- 1037 Views
Hate is a strong word.
14/09/2009 09:44:02 PM
- 1146 Views
He still didn't dick around with us as long as Robert Jordan did. *NM*
15/09/2009 04:41:01 AM
- 539 Views
Elitism and frustration he sells so much and better authors don't?
14/09/2009 09:51:39 PM
- 986 Views
Given that I know nothing about Dan Brown
14/09/2009 09:54:15 PM
- 1134 Views
A couple of the above points, and Suspension of Disbelief.
14/09/2009 10:23:26 PM
- 1105 Views
Good point about the "Ridiculous Things", that bugged me too.
14/09/2009 10:35:32 PM
- 1148 Views
there is a difference between a book, which is a respectable medium, and a hollywood movie.
14/09/2009 10:41:06 PM
- 1002 Views
There is really only a difference if you're looking for some higher learnin'
14/09/2009 10:52:39 PM
- 1073 Views
Only to the strangest of elitists. *NM*
15/09/2009 12:49:53 AM
- 536 Views
I accept your points, but also your final statement
15/09/2009 04:38:46 AM
- 995 Views
More to the point then... people don't really need a good reason to hate something in particular.
15/09/2009 06:00:33 AM
- 1067 Views
To put Brown's mediocrity in perspective, read Da Vinci and then Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. *NM*
15/09/2009 01:32:11 AM
- 534 Views
Eh, I enjoyed DaVinci better. You can all crucify me now.
15/09/2009 01:49:28 AM
- 977 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a544e/a544e9ee1bb31c638f049056f03f2cd0edd259f7" alt=""
As someone who appreciated Foucault's Pendulum I don't argue his mediocrity.
15/09/2009 04:30:31 AM
- 887 Views
He was over hyped to me.
15/09/2009 04:15:32 AM
- 1007 Views
Da Vinci, not "Da Vinchi". The latter would be pronounced like "Da Vinki" in English. *NM*
15/09/2009 04:32:40 AM
- 516 Views
I will fix it for for you. I just didn't care enough to look up the spelling on it.
15/09/2009 02:49:08 PM
- 1098 Views
The thing I hate the most is actually the fans who suddenly "know" stuff....
15/09/2009 07:49:22 AM
- 1139 Views
I try to avoid stupid people like that altogether
15/09/2009 01:49:53 PM
- 946 Views
My take on why Dan Brown is so disliked.
15/09/2009 08:51:04 AM
- 1112 Views
As I've said before, I don't disagree that he's a mediocre writer
15/09/2009 01:52:23 PM
- 988 Views
He 'true' book claims 5 million women were killed during the witch hunt
15/09/2009 11:55:40 AM
- 1002 Views
I think it's more the totally inexplicable nature of his success
15/09/2009 03:48:28 PM
- 1156 Views
Eragon and Twilight indicate all that is evil to me in the world
15/09/2009 04:33:29 PM
- 1134 Views
Honestly, his works play on a very basic fact of human psychology.,
16/09/2009 02:23:56 AM
- 1100 Views
Misplaced superiority.
15/09/2009 05:10:34 PM
- 1066 Views
Well, regarding goodkind...
15/09/2009 05:23:34 PM
- 1029 Views
It's pure literary snobbery
15/09/2009 11:08:44 PM
- 1042 Views
Where does the rule come from that you can't read good books while travelling? It is nonsense!
18/09/2009 10:16:56 AM
- 1250 Views
I think you'll appreciate this Tom
16/09/2009 03:03:24 PM
- 1172 Views
I don't. I think he's just average, though occasionally fun for an easy read/skim *NM*
17/09/2009 12:39:05 AM
- 544 Views
Plenty of them probably don't. They just don't have the guts to say what they truly think. *NM*
17/09/2009 10:10:39 PM
- 493 Views
And yet there's still no "Why do so many people hate Faile?" post on the WoT board... *NM*
18/09/2009 04:05:26 PM
- 674 Views
How do you know? *NM*
18/09/2009 04:57:15 PM
- 539 Views