But if it is crap, how do you account for the huge amount of sales?
Dan Brown: 50 factual errors
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
But if it is crap, how do you account for the huge amount of sales?
aelf
Ashen One
What a horrible argument.
How so? If something is of poor quality, you wouldn’t expect it to have really high sales.
(note that by quality I don’t mean factual accuracy, but rather entertainment value)
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It's like comparing food from fast-food restaurants to the best meals prepared by world-class chefs. Yeah, the former is eaten by millions of people every day, but that doesn't make it high-quality, not to mention healthy.
meh. I just fail to see the correlation between factual accuracy and quality for works of fiction...
moscaverde
Prince
For some reason crap does have a good selling rate, not just Dan Brown, but many other things (I'm sure you can think a good example).
So? Quantity means quality? I think not. Touchy feely romantic stories and porn also sells huge; that doesn't make it literature though.
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
Someone called for an example?
Harry Potter
J. K. Rowlings affection for deus ex machina is somewhere on the same level as Browns character development. The main difference seems to lie in the target audience, and childrens books somewhat lesser requirement for deep characters and plotholes.
Brown does not have that luxury when A) his audience is not children and B) he claims everything in his books is facts.
I actually read his first 4 books, starting with da vinci code and halfway through I decided to just regard it as bad pulp/sci fi. The problem is he does not admit that that is what it is.
Harry Potter
J. K. Rowlings affection for deus ex machina is somewhere on the same level as Browns character development. The main difference seems to lie in the target audience, and childrens books somewhat lesser requirement for deep characters and plotholes.
Brown does not have that luxury when A) his audience is not children and B) he claims everything in his books is facts.
I actually read his first 4 books, starting with da vinci code and halfway through I decided to just regard it as bad pulp/sci fi. The problem is he does not admit that that is what it is.
aelf
Ashen One
You can't be serious, right?
I disagree thoroughly that entertainment value = quality, of course. Like others have said, you'd be hard pressed to make a case that fast food, for example, is quality food despite its popularity. Common conceptions of quality just doesn't automatically extend to popular stuff.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
He certainly has a lot of skill in creating engaging plots.
But a good writer is able to maintain suspension of disbelief. If you lose suspension of disbelief the second you run across anybody with an ounce of knowledge in the subject matter, you're a hack, and a cheat.
Now, not all factual errors listed in the opening post are particularly egregious. Some are perfectly acceptable within the limits of a novel: so what the Illuminati were not officially created until 1776? This is a novel, he can say they were created much earlier (with the implication that a specific branch is what was created in 76, or similar). Ditto the Priory of Sion; if they're a secret society or conspiracy, one would expect they'd arrange to get themselves taken back off the book, like engineering a confession. You know, being "secret" and all. Trivia (like the Washington monument not being the highest in Washington) is also not very important to get right or wrong.
BUT getting basic facts wrong about easily verifiable things that are important to the plot, now that's an issue. A big issue.
For example, the painting that the girl threatens to destroy in the Da Vinci Code. Brown has her knees showing through the fabric of the painting...but the specific painting he picked is a painting on wood. The "It's in the wrong gallery" argument can always be explained without stretching suspension of disbelief much (the Louvres, for whatever obscure reason, just moved it before the novel began...); the "knee showing through wood" can't. And, given Brown could have used a dozen OTHER paintings in that room of the Louvres, it shows bad writing right there. (Mind, Brown is an ART HISTORIAN)
The same goes for plutonium/uranium in Digital Fortress. That information is used to resolve the last mystery in the novel. Getting it wrong is really frustrating, because the story would have worked just as well if he had gotten it right (he'd have lost about two pages of last-minute pseudo-google-searching), there's no reasonable justification for his getting it wrong, but there it is, starring right at us.
A good writer can take liberties with reality that are crucial to his plot or his setting. When it's just this sort of dumb mistakes that don'T change anything to the plot, but are still involved in core elements of the story, though, it's shoddy writing.
And of course, the fact that he claims "based on fact" everywhere he can is just dumb.
THAT said...
Just wanted to point out that here we have people in glass houses throwing stones...
First off, there were eight traditional numbered crusades (the last one is in 1270, though.)
Second off, there were plenty of crusades besides the numbered ones - it's a crusade if the Pope says it is.
Third off, there were, in fact, a few crusades in the 15th century, largely aimed to defend the Balkans against the Ottoman Empire.
Fourth off, it's true that the papal swiss guard were founded in 1506, so unlikely to have been at 15th century crusades. Sorry Dan, you still fail!
(To be fair, the Pope DID send his own troops to many of these crusades, and it's not unlikely Swiss pikemen of the sort that would eventually become the guard were also involved. But still, that's not what Brown claims)
But a good writer is able to maintain suspension of disbelief. If you lose suspension of disbelief the second you run across anybody with an ounce of knowledge in the subject matter, you're a hack, and a cheat.
Now, not all factual errors listed in the opening post are particularly egregious. Some are perfectly acceptable within the limits of a novel: so what the Illuminati were not officially created until 1776? This is a novel, he can say they were created much earlier (with the implication that a specific branch is what was created in 76, or similar). Ditto the Priory of Sion; if they're a secret society or conspiracy, one would expect they'd arrange to get themselves taken back off the book, like engineering a confession. You know, being "secret" and all. Trivia (like the Washington monument not being the highest in Washington) is also not very important to get right or wrong.
BUT getting basic facts wrong about easily verifiable things that are important to the plot, now that's an issue. A big issue.
For example, the painting that the girl threatens to destroy in the Da Vinci Code. Brown has her knees showing through the fabric of the painting...but the specific painting he picked is a painting on wood. The "It's in the wrong gallery" argument can always be explained without stretching suspension of disbelief much (the Louvres, for whatever obscure reason, just moved it before the novel began...); the "knee showing through wood" can't. And, given Brown could have used a dozen OTHER paintings in that room of the Louvres, it shows bad writing right there. (Mind, Brown is an ART HISTORIAN)
The same goes for plutonium/uranium in Digital Fortress. That information is used to resolve the last mystery in the novel. Getting it wrong is really frustrating, because the story would have worked just as well if he had gotten it right (he'd have lost about two pages of last-minute pseudo-google-searching), there's no reasonable justification for his getting it wrong, but there it is, starring right at us.
A good writer can take liberties with reality that are crucial to his plot or his setting. When it's just this sort of dumb mistakes that don'T change anything to the plot, but are still involved in core elements of the story, though, it's shoddy writing.
And of course, the fact that he claims "based on fact" everywhere he can is just dumb.
THAT said...
Just wanted to point out that here we have people in glass houses throwing stones...
First off, there were eight traditional numbered crusades (the last one is in 1270, though.)
Second off, there were plenty of crusades besides the numbered ones - it's a crusade if the Pope says it is.
Third off, there were, in fact, a few crusades in the 15th century, largely aimed to defend the Balkans against the Ottoman Empire.
Fourth off, it's true that the papal swiss guard were founded in 1506, so unlikely to have been at 15th century crusades. Sorry Dan, you still fail!
(To be fair, the Pope DID send his own troops to many of these crusades, and it's not unlikely Swiss pikemen of the sort that would eventually become the guard were also involved. But still, that's not what Brown claims)
Even if you can dispute some of these errors, there are plenty more to find in there. E.g. the description of CERN is hilarious for those that have already been there.
And then there are the plotholes as big as a meteor crater.
I have to give him credit: He manages to tell the story so fast-paced, that you have no time to notice all that while reading. Only if you think about it later, you notice what crap it is.
so? only other stupid believe it, leaving me relatively high and dry.
Sofista
Deity
Hem... Dan Brown pays a first grade Italian student, but the Telegraph also isn't flawless:
The "di" is indeed wrong, but something is indeed needed: the article ("la"), otherwise it would be robotic-like speech. And why specify the chapel name while it's obvious in the contest? This Italian would think outside high school such precautions to be unnecessary.
"Hanno" is a (third person) plural; haven't read the books, but even if a group were addressed, "avete" would be in order. "Hanno" would have been in place in baroque age formal speech, though.
From the context, it appears that this Vittoria is asking if someone recognized a certain man. In that case, "l'uomo" would be fine, but "riconosciuto" should have been used (otherwise the question would be if they have been introduced). If not, the Telegraph criticism is correct - except when they suggest that "hanno conosciuto l'uomo" might take any sexual meaning. From the above cappella example, I guess they're a wee bit obsessed with smut.
My personal one: I read Brown suggests that Da Vinci intended the name Mona Lisa as an anagram of "Amon" and "Lisa".
Ingenious, and it apparently works in every language... except Italian, where the Gioconda is known as "Monna Lisa". By the way, come to NE Italy and try calling someone "mona", but be prepared: you'll have to run.
The "di" is indeed wrong, but something is indeed needed: the article ("la"), otherwise it would be robotic-like speech. And why specify the chapel name while it's obvious in the contest? This Italian would think outside high school such precautions to be unnecessary.
"Hanno" is a (third person) plural; haven't read the books, but even if a group were addressed, "avete" would be in order. "Hanno" would have been in place in baroque age formal speech, though.
From the context, it appears that this Vittoria is asking if someone recognized a certain man. In that case, "l'uomo" would be fine, but "riconosciuto" should have been used (otherwise the question would be if they have been introduced). If not, the Telegraph criticism is correct - except when they suggest that "hanno conosciuto l'uomo" might take any sexual meaning. From the above cappella example, I guess they're a wee bit obsessed with smut.
My personal one: I read Brown suggests that Da Vinci intended the name Mona Lisa as an anagram of "Amon" and "Lisa".
Ingenious, and it apparently works in every language... except Italian, where the Gioconda is known as "Monna Lisa". By the way, come to NE Italy and try calling someone "mona", but be prepared: you'll have to run.
Dan Brown is a terribly poor author and his reputation and appeal make that fact even worse. My thoughts on the thread title - "Only 50?" which was then vindicated by seeing it only an analysis of a few books, and at that some more recent ones where both he and his editors/publishers have had a chance to get better.
But alas, he is the perfect "average" author to read these days each night after your episodes of CSI and Stargate...
But alas, he is the perfect "average" author to read these days each night after your episodes of CSI and Stargate...
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Obligatory post stating that stupid people, not fiction, should be abolished.
azzaman333
meh
Crap writer spews out crap about crap.
I fail to see anything remotely surprising about this.
I fail to see anything remotely surprising about this.
Shaihulud
Deity
Never read any of his book, but he propably knows he can get away with it with his fans. Some writers do heaps research on facts, but only really meticulous fans will notice the work. Dan Brown propably doesn't respect his work as a thesis, but as a way to make money and engaging story.
Jazzmail
King
Some of these errors are just plain laziness. A writer should do proper research.
Similar threads
