Dan Brown: 50 factual errors

[Phlegmak]

I'm surprised it's only 50 errors.

 

[Yeekim]

A flawless tribute to water [which] glorified the four major rivers of the Old World - The Nile, Ganges, Danube, and Rio Plata.

Imho, the biggest lolwut of them all.

I've never read any of his books and I never intend to. Losing nearly 2 hours of my life because someone tricked me into watching this PoS movie is enough for me.

 

[Winner]

Imho, the biggest lolwut of them all.

I've never read any of his books and I never intend to. Losing nearly 2 hours of my life because someone tricked me into watching this PoS movie is enough for me.

The worst thing is that I actually enjoyed Da Vinci Code (if I was a Japanese, I'd have to kill myself to erase the shame :suicide: ). One thing Brown can do are cliffhangers - you really want to read more. But it only work when you're unaware of the tons of nonsense he's writing. He sucks at creating deep characters, which is why all his stories happen in a timespan of few hours/days - he can hide the lack of depth in tons of action.

 

[Gilder]

Since we know most of his specifics are a load, he really should take the little "this is all real" page out. That's most of the reason people have issues with him.

 

[Winner]

Since we know most of his specifics are a load, he really should take the little "this is all real" page out. That's most of the reason people have issues with him.

Waaait, he actually said that what he's writing is real?

 

[uppi]

Waaait, he actually said that what he's writing is real?

It says so in the OP:

Dan Brown’s new novel The Lost Symbol opens with a bold word: FACT. "All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real", it says.
The Da Vinci Code, his previous bestseller, began in a similar fashion. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate", Brown says before the prologue.

And I remember reading something similar in Angels & Demons

 

[BSmith1068]

Writing fiction doesn't give you a license to completely distort facts.

Um… yeah it does….

Main Entry: fic•tion
Pronunciation: \’fik-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ficcioun, from Middle French fiction, from Latin fiction-, fictio act of fashioning, fiction, from fingere to shape, fashion, feign — more at dough
Date: 14th century

1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : novel
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction

 

[Winner]

It says so in the OP:

And I remember reading something similar in Angels & Demons

I don't remember it, but that makes it even more tragic.

Um&#8230; yeah it does&#8230;.

Go away, quibbler...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How can you be sure that secret rituals are accurate?

 

[BSmith1068]

Go away, quibbler...

It is neither a trivial nor frivolous objection… The statement you made is a work of fiction in its own right.

Look – fiction is just another word for story. Sure many fiction writers base their stories on a set of facts so that the reader has a point of reference to the story, but there is absolutely no requirement that they be factually accurate. And let’s be honest here - the big difference between a history book and a work of fiction is the distortion of facts.

 

[Winner]

It is neither a trivial nor frivolous objection&#8230; The statement you made is a work of fiction in its own right.

Look &#8211; fiction is just another word for story. Sure many fiction writers base their stories on a set of facts so that the reader has a point of reference to the story, but there is absolutely no requirement that they be factually accurate. And let&#8217;s be honest here - the big difference between a history book and a work of fiction is the distortion of facts.

Oh come on - if you write this kind of fiction, it is expected that the STORY itself is fictional, but not the basic facts (see the list of mistakes). Your objection would be valid if I criticized some fantasy book ("magic doesn't exist!"), but in this case there is absolutely no excuse. The guy is implying (and now even claiming) that what he's writing is based on real world facts, which is a lie.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is not so much about the fiction as about the BS claim Dan Brown makes in the foreword of his book.

 

[Perfection]

Do you really think posts like this are funny?

I do!

 

[Agent327]

QED. Also note that these 50 examples are a selection. (See 1st post link for further reading.) From my own reading of Dan Brown I noticed that a subplot in Rome, were the main characters are supposed to follow the direction of arrows held by various statues in the city couldn't possibly be true, as at least one of these arrows points downward... And I didn't even need any research on that. Proper writers do proper research before publishing their novels.

 

[BSmith1068]

Oh come on - if you write this kind of fiction, it is expected that the STORY itself is fictional, but not the basic facts (see the list of mistakes). Your objection would be valid if I criticized some fantasy book ("magic doesn't exist!"), but in this case there is absolutely no excuse. The guy is implying (and now even claiming) that what he's writing is based on real world facts, which is a lie.

Putting the “this is fact” in a foreword is kinda stupid – I’ll grant you that. But it is still a work of fiction. But just like any other work of fiction, the main point of the work is not factual accuracy, but entertainment.

You yourself even enjoyed the first book when you read it. Just because some of the “truths” in the book are indeed false doesn’t change the fact that it was a compelling and entertaining story.

The worst thing is that I actually enjoyed Da Vinci Code (if I was a Japanese, I'd have to kill myself to erase the shame :suicide: ). One thing Brown can do are cliffhangers - you really want to read more. But it only work when you're unaware of the tons of nonsense he's writing. He sucks at creating deep characters, which is why all his stories happen in a timespan of few hours/days - he can hide the lack of depth in tons of action.

 

[BSmith1068]

Proper writers do proper research before publishing their novels.

Just a quick question here - How many books has he sold? It doesn&#8217;t seem that the &#8220;market&#8221; is more concerned with factual accuracy than a good story.

By what metric do you gauge a "proper" writer anyway? Books sold would be a good indicator in my opinion...

Wikipedia has his total book sold count at over 80 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Brown

 

[Lillefix]

Just a quick question here - How many books has he sold? It doesn&#8217;t seem that the &#8220;market&#8221; is more concerned with factual accuracy than a good story.

By what metric do you gauge a "proper" writer anyway? Books sold would be a good indicator in my opinion...

Wikipedia has his total book sold count at over 80 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Brown

If he can't write or do research he's not a proper writer.

 

[BSmith1068]

If he can't write or do research he's not a proper writer.

Do you think that someone who has sold over 80 million books can't write or do research?

 

[Yeekim]

Do you think that someone who has sold over 80 million books can't write or do research?

EAT COW DUNG!

Spoiler :

The taste of millions of flies can't be deceptive

Spoiler :

Apologies if that came off as rude.

 

[Winner]

Do you think that someone who has sold over 80 million books can't write or do research?

Absolutely. He can write, that's obvious, but he writes crap. You seem to be mistaking quantity for quality.