Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on December 11, 2017, 02:31:19 PM
-
Hi everyone,
I don't know how many of you have read Dan Brown's latest book 'Origins'. I just finished it.
It discusses precisely what all of us here try to discuss every day. About Religion and Atheism and technology and futuristic possibilities.
Amazing how much of detailing Dan Brown is capable of and how well he mixes facts with fiction. It is also amazing how well he s able to see a complex subject like religion from completely different perspectives.
Great guy and a good book!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I got as far as Dan Brown. That tells me all I needed to know.
-
I got as far as Dan Brown. That tells me all I needed to know.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/dont-make-fun-of-renowned-dan-brown/
-
;D
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/dont-make-fun-of-renowned-dan-brown/
Very funny!
-
For me, the final straw was his characterisation of Temple underground station as being a maze of tunnels.
And as for Leonardo, if his family name was anything it was Sieri. Vinci was the place he came from, To call Leonardo "Da Vinci " is like calling Dwaine "Scunthorpe".
-
And tell me exactly what's your problem with Dwaine Scunthorpe?
-
Being pedantic, it's Duane.
-
Sigh!
Almost pathological cynicism and scorn! ::)
Like typical adolescents many of you seem to take pride in belittling intelligent and renowned people. A show of irreverence and self importance.
Pathetic!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/08/origin-dan-brown-review
-
Sigh!
Almost pathological cynicism and scorn! ::)
Like typical adolescents many of you seem to take pride in belittling intelligent and renowned people.
I don't - I'm all for intelligent and renowned people.
This thread is about Dan Brown, though.
-
And tell me exactly what's your problem with Dwaine Scunthorpe?
His surname is Twistleton-Smyth. He is the illegitimate son of the Lord of the Manor of Scunthorpe.
Being pedantic, it's Duane.
Not on his birth certificate.
-
Well Sririam we will have to disagree.
I haven't read this book - but I did read The DaVinchi code. I'm still trying to re-coup that time.
I think the clue is in the fact that this is classified under fiction.
And if you are looking for a writer who mixes fact and fiction why not try Stephen King's 11/22/63 a damn sight more convincing even with it's totally bonkers time-travel conceit.
-
Sigh!
Almost pathological cynicism and scorn! ::)
Like typical adolescents many of you seem to take pride in belittling intelligent and renowned people. A show of irreverence and self importance.
Pathetic!
Come on, Sriram,
Show a little maturity and accept that people have different opinions to you. It doesn't mean you have been somehow personally slighted. :)
-
Sigh!
Almost pathological cynicism and scorn! ::)
Like typical adolescents many of you seem to take pride in belittling intelligent and renowned people. A show of irreverence and self importance.
Pathetic!
Hi Sriram
you've really only confirmed how I have judged you , a typical candidate for this author.
no offence...
-
And tell me exactly what's your problem with Dwaine Scunthorpe?
there's a thoroughly reprehensible person hiding in Scunthorpe !
-
That was a fun link. I do admire people who can be witty like that.
Actually I quite enjoyed the Da Vinci Code, but I think that was probably because it was very well read on the audio version with the reader adding that touch of irony to His (or her, but I'm pretty sure it was a he) voice. Also, of course, I knew what to expect.
-
LOL!
Leaving out Robbie...seven people have posted and no one (Susan has made some polite noises, granted) has had anything positive to say about the book or the author. No one has even read the book, of course!
Typically a group mentality....almost 'religious' in its stand against what the author stands for.
Dan Brown's writing is exceptional, his detailing is exceptional, his ability to view religion, atheism, science etc. from an equal perspective is exceptional.... his balance is exceptional.
Maybe that is the problem...the balance. People with extreme views never tolerate balance. They find it irksome because they can neither agree with it nor fight against it. :D
Try reading the book....guys.
-
LOL!
Leaving out Robbie...seven people have posted and no one (Susan has made some polite noises, granted) has had anything positive to say about the book or the author. No one has even read the book, of course!
Typically a group mentality....almost 'religious' in its stand against what the author stands for.
Dan Brown's writing is exceptional, his detailing is exceptional, his ability to view religion, atheism, science etc. from an equal perspective is exceptional.... his balance is exceptional.
Maybe that is the problem...the balance. People with extreme views never tolerate balance. They find it irksome because they can neither agree with it nor fight against it. :D
Try reading the book....guys.
No, the problem is that as many of people who have read one or more of his books think is that he writes ridiculously badly. The review put it better than I could.
-
Leaving out Robbie...seven people have posted and no one (Susan has made some polite noises, granted) has had anything positive to say about the book or the author. No one has even read the book, of course!
I've no intention of so doing. I suffered through too much of The Da Vinci Code and took a cursory glance at Angels and Demons to see if it was any better. It wasn't. I'm not going to live long enough to read all the good books there are to read without wasting my dwindling time on the dreadful ones. If you want me to scrape together something positive about the man, I could say that he has some interesting plot ideas (although very far from original - The Da Vinci Code is a pretty straightforward rip-off in fictional form of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, touted as non-fiction) but his execution of said ideas is atrocious.
Dan Brown's writing is exceptional
I'm in complete agreement, except by it I mean exceptionally bad to the point of being laughable.
his detailing is exceptional, his ability to view religion, atheism, science etc. from an equal perspective is exceptional.... his balance is exceptional.
You are aware that he writes fiction, yes?
Maybe that is the problem [...]
No, the problem is that he's a hack who has made himself a very rich man by churning out tenth-rate potboilers. No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the general public, as someone once correctly said.
-
Come on, Sriram,
Show a little maturity and accept that people have different opinions to you. It doesn't mean you have been somehow personally slighted. :)
Of course he's personally slighted. People who encounter others who don't like what they like pretty usually are.
-
I've no intention of so doing. I suffered through too much of The Da Vinci Code and took a cursory glance at Angels and Demons to see if it was any better. It wasn't. I'm not going to live long enough to read all the good books there are to read without wasting my dwindling time on the dreadful ones.
I'm in complete agreement, except by it I mean exceptionally bad to the point of being laughable.
You are aware that he writes fiction, yes?
No, the problem is that he's a hack who has made himself a very rich man by churning out tenth-rate potboilers. No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the general public, as someone once correctly said.
Yes...he writes fiction.....but in the background of real issues such as religion and atheism....Christianity and historicity of Jesus...the role of the catholic church....Science and religion... and so on. All matters that should be of interest to people on this board, whether we agree with him or not.
You have a problem with the money he is making?! That is silly! You people even accuse Mother Teresa of making money!
Grow up!
-
Yes...he writes fiction.....but in the background of real issues such as religion and atheism....Christianity and historicity of Jesus...the role of the catholic church....Science and religion... and so on. All matters that should be of interest to people on this board, whether we agree with him or not.
You have a problem with the money he is making?! That is silly! You people even accuse Mother Teresa of making money!
Grow up!
And given the Da Vinci Code is based on a known fraud?
-
Dan Brown's writing is exceptional, his detailing is exceptional, his ability to view religion, atheism, science etc. from an equal perspective is exceptional.... his balance is exceptional.
Maybe that is the problem...the balance. People with extreme views never tolerate balance. They find it irksome because they can neither agree with it nor fight against it. :D
Try reading the book....guys.
Having read The DaVinci Code, I can see no merit in reading any more of his books unless he has changed his style.
Has he?
-
You people even accuse Mother Teresa of making money!
Didn't think this was in dispute. But not really relevant to Dan Brown's writing talents.
-
Yes...he writes fiction.....but in the background of real issues such as religion and atheism....Christianity and historicity of Jesus...the role of the catholic church....Science and religion... and so on. All matters that should be of interest to people on this board, whether we agree with him or not.
They are of great interest - that's why we're all here. Unfortunately, he's a very bad writer.
You have a problem with the money he is making?! That is silly!
No, I don't find it silly to be depressed about the standards of taste (rather the lack thereof) that sees such tawdry and meretricious twaddle as so popular. It's the same depression that comes from being reminded that the Sun is Britain's best-selling paper.
You people even accuse Mother Teresa of making money!
Quite correctly, as it turns out.
-
And given the Da Vinci Code is based on a known fraud?
How is that relevant? It is fiction!
But it touches upon Jesus and his historicity and the possibility of his having lived after the crucifixion. Interesting stuff!
Should only you guys discuss that stuff (ad infinitum) with Alan and Vlad and the other guys on the christian board? Why not Dan Brown?
-
How is that relevant? It is fiction!
Badly-couched fiction.
But it touches upon Jesus and his historicity and the possibility of his having lived after the crucifixion. Interesting stuff!
Very, and best left to serious academic scholars rather than purveyors of yellow pseudo-literature.
Should only you guys discuss that stuff (ad infinitum) with Alan and Vlad and the other guys on the christian board? Why not Dan Brown?
Because he's crap.
-
Because he's crap.
I've read worse. A lot worse!
However I have no intention of parting with my money on any more of his stuff. If someone gave me a copy as a gift I would read it though and pass comment here.
Sriram, want to mail me your copy if you are done with it?
-
Another beauty: https://tinyurl.com/hv44nrh
-
I've read worse. A lot worse!
Oh, so have I, believe you me ::)
-
How is that relevant? It is fiction!
But it touches upon Jesus and his historicity and the possibility of his having lived after the crucifixion. Interesting stuff!
Should only you guys discuss that stuff (ad infinitum) with Alan and Vlad and the other guys on the christian board? Why not Dan Brown?
Because then surely the questions asked are invalid?
-
Another beauty: https://tinyurl.com/hv44nrh
That is an absolute hoot: my sides are sore from laughing!
-
Yes...he writes fiction.....but in the background of real issues such as religion and atheism....Christianity and historicity of Jesus...the role of the catholic church....Science and religion... and so on. All matters that should be of interest to people on this board, whether we agree with him or not.
You have a problem with the money he is making?! That is silly! You people even accuse Mother Teresa of making money!
Grow up!
I don't think there is any doubt that woman did make money!
-
And given the Da Vinci Code is based on a known fraud?
It certainly helped to have read all about that background stuff! :)
-
Well....I think Dan Brown writes great stuff. All the religion and Science and atheism and Christianity ...etc..... combined with murder and mystery.
Great stuff! I loved all his last four books. Waiting for his next one.
Good night guys!
-
Sigh!
Almost pathological cynicism and scorn! ::)
Like typical adolescents many of you seem to take pride in belittling intelligent and renowned people. A show of irreverence and self importance.
Pathetic!
Dan Brown is apparently capable of telling a good story, but is a notorious plagiarist for the religious/historical data he employs in his writing. This wouldn't matter so much, except that the information he has plagiarised in his most well-known screed "The Da Vinci Code" was culled from the ludicrous researches of Baigent and Lee, who apart from showing not the slightest understanding of origins of Christianity, and the nature of Gnosticism in particular, were complete dupes of a farcical scam themselves - which they passed off as genuine historical research.
-
It certainly helped to have read all about that background stuff! :)
I remember watching the original programme on this in the Chronicle series, The Priest, The Painter and The Devil in 1974, entranced at the pieced together and piecemeal story. As it was before videos or indeed frequent repeats, it was 5 years till it and the follow up appeared again, and then this obviously went onto become The Holy Blood and and The Holy Grail. When this become outed as based on a set of frauds which the writers hadn't really made much effort in investigating, it was fair enough, part of the thrill and an informative example of fake news, or rather fake history.
That all of this received a thorough examination in terms of the possibility of hidden truths and a parody thereof in Foucault's Pendulum by Eco, long before Brown vomited his execrable novels on the unsuspecting world like a lovely horse with fetlocks flowing in the wind and having a bad case of food poisoning, seemed to me to sound the end of such speculative semi histories. How foolish I, the immensely tall reader, was.
The original was just part of a huge swathe of books based on an intention to ignore facts for the sake of sensation from the lunacies of Von Daniken to Graham Hancock to those covered in Them by Jon Ronson such as Alex Jones.
It looks almost funny, with David Icke and his lizards but much of it is tied up in a deluded melange of anti semitism, ethnic tribalism and logical illiteracy. For Brown to come in in his clunky plagiarising fictions and sweep up the witlessness of misunderstandings could be seen as a genius of opportunity, even if the prose and ideas are valueless retreads.
-
That is an absolute hoot: my sides are sore from laughing!
Ernie Wise is spinning in his grave 😱
-
I don't - I'm all for intelligent and renowned people.
This thread is about Dan Brown, though.
:)
-
LOL!
Dan Brown's writing is exceptional, his detailing is exceptional, his ability to view religion, atheism, science etc. from an equal perspective is exceptional.... his balance is exceptional.
Now that is LOL!
-
I remember watching the original programme on this in the Chronicle series, The Priest, The Painter and The Devil in 1974, entranced at the pieced together and piecemeal story. As it was before videos or indeed frequent repeats, it was 5 years till it and the follow up appeared again, and then this obviously went onto become The Holy Blood and and The Holy Grail. When this become outed as based on a set of frauds which the writers hadn't really made much effort in investigating, it was fair enough, part of the thrill and an informative example of fake news, or rather fake history.
That all of this received a thorough examination in terms of the possibility of hidden truths and a parody thereof in Foucault's Pendulum by Eco, long before Brown vomited his execrable novels on the unsuspecting world like a lovely horse with fetlocks flowing in the wind and having a bad case of food poisoning, seemed to me to sound the end of such speculative semi histories. How foolish I, the immensely tall reader, was.
The original was just part of a huge swathe of books based on an intention to ignore facts for the sake of sensation from the lunacies of Von Daniken to Graham Hancock to those covered in Them by Jon Robson such as Alex Jones.
It looks almost funny, with David Icke and his lizards but much of it is tied up in a deluded melange of anti semitism, ethic tribalism and logical illiteracy. Or Brown to come in in his clunky plagiarising fictions and sweep up the witlessness of misunderstandings could be seen as a genius of opportunity, even if the prose and ideas are valueless retreads.
Good summary, though I'd say that Graham Hancock was a cut above Von Daniken in his capacity for rational thought (though that's not saying much). Some of his speculations seem reasonable enough, though he does seem a prophet of doom sometimes.
Jon Ronson is absolutely brilliant.
-
Yes...he writes fiction.....but in the background of real issues such as religion and atheism....Christianity and historicity of Jesus...the role of the catholic church....Science and religion... and so on. All matters that should be of interest to people on this board, whether we agree with him or not.
In 1974, the BBC, in its Chronicle history documentary series screened a programme called The Devil, The Priest and the Painter. It was about a remarkable discovery, in south west France by a priest of evidence that Jesus had married May Magdalen, survived the cruxifiction and escaped to France. Their bloodline was the Merovingian dynasty.
The authors of the programme claimed they had unearthed a secret society, the Priory of Sion, whose function was to promote and protect the interests of this dynasty. This society had, among its members, some of the most influential people in history. One of the authors was Henry Lincoln - a scriptwriter on Doctor Who. That should have been enough to activate the world's bull-shit detectors.
Several years later, the BBC screened another programme in which the whole thing (including the subsequent book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was revealed as a total fraud. The whole thing has about as much veracity as Donald Trump's claim that he is very intelligent.
At the beginning of The Da Vinci Code Dan Brown makes two statements which he claims are "facts". One is that the Priory of Sion is a real organisation.
That "fact" is a lie.
Edit
Explanatory article from the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/books/the-last-word-the-da-vinci-con.html
-
I've got nothing positive or negative to say about the book because I haven't read it. I have read the Da Vinci Code and the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, from which he purloined many of his ideas, as Shaker says, and I'm certainly not impressed by his writing particularly. Unless he has changed, he seems to invest his time in writing fictional thrillers with plenty of action and puzzle solving, scattered with plenty of allusions to historical places and events. I'll try to read his latest offering when it becomes available in one of the charity shops, but, until then, I'll simply reserve my judgement.
-
Good summary, though I'd say that Graham Hancock was a cut above Von Daniken in his capacity for rational thought (though that's not saying much). Some of his speculations seem reasonable enough, though he does seem a prophet of doom sometimes.
Jon Ronson is absolutely brilliant.
I think Hancock is better than Von Daniken in the same sense drivel is better than shite.
-
For me, the final straw was his characterisation of Temple underground station as being a maze of tunnels.
And as for Leonardo, if his family name was anything it was Sieri. Vinci was the place he came from, To call Leonardo "Da Vinci " is like calling Dwaine "Scunthorpe".
Actually "of Scunthorpe".
Anyway, say what you like of Dan Brown, he writes books that people want to read.
I've only read "Da Vinci Code" and yes, I thought the writing was terrible and its "facts" were all over the place, but I cannot deny it was a real page turner.
-
I don't - I'm all for intelligent and renowned people.
This thread is about Dan Brown, though.
He really is not stupid though and he's certainly renowned for writing financially successful books.
-
Dan Brown is apparently capable of telling a good story, but is a notorious plagiarist for the religious/historical data he employs in his writing. This wouldn't matter so much, except that the information he has plagiarised in his most well-known screed "The Da Vinci Code" was culled from the ludicrous researches of Baigent and Lee, who apart from showing not the slightest understanding of origins of Christianity, and the nature of Gnosticism in particular, were complete dupes of a farcical scam themselves - which they passed off as genuine historical research.
For it to be plagiarism, he would have to be concealing his sources. He openly acknowledges the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as his source. In fact, the name one of the characters in the book is an anagram of "Baigent Lee".
-
That all of this received a thorough examination in terms of the possibility of hidden truths and a parody thereof in Foucault's Pendulum by Eco, long before Brown vomited his execrable novels on the unsuspecting world like a lovely horse with fetlocks flowing in the wind and having a bad case of food poisoning, seemed to me to sound the end of such speculative semi histories. How foolish I, the immensely tall reader, was.
Foucault's pendulum was the first book I ever gave up reading after starting it. It was a tedious and turgid borefest. Coincidentally, I also failed to finish The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail for much the same reasons. On the other hand, I knocked off The Da Vinci Code in two days and it was vastly more entertaining than either of those two books.
-
Foucault's pendulum was the first book I ever gave up reading after starting it. It was a tedious and turgid borefest. Coincidentally, I also failed to finish The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail for much the same reasons. On the other hand, I knocked off The Da Vinci Code in two days and it was vastly more entertaining than either of those two books.
Dear god, you read slowly!
-
Dear god, you read slowly!
Two elapsed days.
-
Two elapsed days.
Well done, have a gold star.
-
Well done, have a gold star.
What is your problem? Is it that you are jealous that Dan Brown is cleaver enough to apply his limited talents to producing a number of very lucrative books whereas you are reduced to sneering about the results on backwater message boards?
-
What is your problem? Is it that you are jealous that Dan Brown is cleaver enough to apply his limited talents to producing a number of very lucrative books whereas you are reduced to sneering about the results on backwater message boards?
Diddums!
-
Anyway, say what you like of Dan Brown, he writes books that people want to read.
Not much of a recommendation for people, really.
-
I'm kind of with Jeremyp on this - he writes page turners and makes a very good living out of it. Good luck to him.
I just object to one poster attaching some kind of importance to what is nothing more than a potboiler, and not a particularly good one at that, I'm talking about "The Da Vinchi Code" here as I haven't read the latest offering - but none of the reviews point to it being anything more than the same old, same old.
Still. He uses. Longer sentences than Kathy Reichs. So not. All bad.
-
I agree with you, Trent. Good luck to Dan Brown for cashing in and capturing the imagination of some gullible people for a while - but he's not a 'good writer'. However there's nothing wrong in being a successful popular writer.
What Dicky said on previous page is spot on.
-
Ah! So at least a couple of people have had something positive to say about Dan Brown and his books. That's nice! I was getting worried about the people here. ;)
I was beginning to think that it is probably the latest fad in the West to dislike Dan Brown and his books. Some kind of status symbol. If you like his books you are sneered upon and no one talks to you any more and people walk away if you enter the room or something. :D
In any case, the herd mentality is clearly in evidence here because there is absolutely no reason to ridicule and belittle Dan Brown and his books the way many of you are doing.
I am certain that it is his balanced approach to religion, science and atheism that is getting to you people. Laughing at someone is normally a way of getting over ones fear or envy.
There is nothing wrong with his style or his english (Most people here....Englishmen and women at that.... cannot write a straight paragraph in good english I have noticed...no offence!).
At any rate...please do try to read his new book. He discusses the issue of whether religion would be eliminated by science and technology.....and concludes that it is not likely.
Cheers guys.
Sriram
-
Sririam: I was beginning to think that it is probably the latest fad in the West to dislike Dan Brown and his books. Some kind of status symbol. If you like his books you are sneered upon and no one talks to you any more and people walk away if you enter the room or something.
Sririam, Dan Brown was not sneered upon by many, lots of very intelligent people found his books (The Da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons(I read both & admit to gettingthem mixed up!) )).
However he is not a great writer in the sense of classic great writers, by which I mean those who will be used as set books in exams. You have to accept that.
Dan Brown fits in with (old) Harold Robbins, Stephen King, James Herbert and whoever did the Celestine books. Nowt wrong with any of that & I'm in favour of people making money from popular writing.
-
...the herd mentality is clearly in evidence here because there is absolutely no reason to ridicule and belittle Dan Brown and his books the way many of you are doing.
Apart from the fact that he's crap.
I am certain that it is his balanced approach to religion, science and atheism that is getting to you people. Laughing at someone is normally a way of getting over ones fear or envy.
Don't try and play the amateur psychologist. Stick to what you're good at ... whatever that is. Laughing at someone is also normally a way of expressing an emotion toward someone who invites mockery - and Brown doesn't just invite mockery, he lets it in, cooks it a smashing tea and lets it sleep in the spare room in the bed that he put lovely fresh clean sheets on earlier in the day.
There is nothing wrong with his style or his english
Careful writers seem to think otherwise. That fact that he's so widely parodied, and that it's so easy to do so (examples provided on this thread), would be telling you something if you didn't have such a man-crush on him.
At any rate...please do try to read his new book.
No, I get off to sleep perfectly well already, thanks.
-
Sririam: I was beginning to think that it is probably the latest fad in the West to dislike Dan Brown and his books. Some kind of status symbol. If you like his books you are sneered upon and no one talks to you any more and people walk away if you enter the room or something.
Sririam, Dan Brown was not sneered upon by many, lots of very intelligent people found his books (The Da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons(I read both & admit to gettingthem mixed up!) )).
However he is not a great writer in the sense of classic great writers, by which I mean those who will be used as set books in exams. You have to accept that.
Dan Brown fits in with (old) Harold Robbins, Stephen King, James Herbert and whoever did the Celestine books. Nowt wrong with any of that & I'm in favour of people making money from popular writing.
Classics?! Who said anything about classics?
You really mean that the people on here read only Tolstoy, Dickens, Thomas Hardy ....and the like? I don't think so. These are anyway classics of a different era. I bet no one today takes up Shakespeare for a read on a Sunday afternoon anymore...even in England let alone the rest of the world.
At any rate, it would be very unfair to categorize Dan Brown with Harold Robbins or Alistair Maclaine, Arthur Hailey or Sidney Sheldon etc. He doesn't just write 'who dun it' thrillers or teenage romantic novels.
He addresses serious ideological issues such as religion, Science, atheism etc. that are very relevant to the times...but in a popular way interwoven with mystery and intrigue.
I think he is succeeding in bringing out into the popular arena issues that are normally discussed only among so called 'intellectuals'. I like that!
-
Dan Brown fits in with (old) Harold Robbins, Stephen King, James Herbert and whoever did the Celestine books. Nowt wrong with any of that & I'm in favour of people making money from popular writing.
No, no, no, no, no. Stephen King should not be on that list. At his best he is a brilliant writer. Read any of his books where childhood is involved to understand what I mean. He does some sublime stuff.
-
No, no, no, no, no. Stephen King should not be on that list. At his best he is a brilliant writer. Read any of his books where childhood is involved to understand what I mean. He does some sublime stuff.
I was going to say exactly this.
King knows how to write books that people want to read but can do it well, in fact quite brilliantly; Brown can only manage the first half. Because so many of King's books are long (and more than a few are very long indeed) there's the scope to create intricate plots and entirely realistic, finely-drawn, not always sympathetic but wholly believable characters. Like life itself. In the hands of a really good writer nobody minds going along for the long haul.
It is about the best evocation of childhood-going-on-adolescence and friendship - especially the friendships formed when you're very young - as I've ever read.
-
I was going to say exactly this.
King knows how to write books that people want to read but can do it well, in fact quite brilliantly; Brown can only manage the first half. Because so many of King's books are long (and more than a few are very long indeed) there's the scope to create intricate plots and entirely realistic, finely-drawn, not always sympathetic but wholly believable characters. Like life itself. In the hands of a really good writer nobody minds going along for the long haul.
It is about the best evocation of childhood-going-on-adolescence and friendship - especially the friendships formed when you're very young - as I've ever read.
I'll agree and I'll give a shout out in one sense to James Herbert who stylistically was simple but not bad in the sense that Brown is.
That said I think there's 2 issues here. The first is that of style - is someone a good writer in terms of writing well about their subject and I think Brown fails most obviously here, but that's never been a guide to success.
The second is content and I think that he's a good creator of absurd but exciting plots based on an ability to pile various odds ideas into a semi coherent joyride. He's not writing anything deep, and millions of people enjoy it.
ETA: It might be thought that semi coherent is a very harsh judgement but that's true of a lot of very well written books stylistically - Raymond Chandler springs to mind as an example.
-
Ah! So at least a couple of people have had something positive to say about Dan Brown and his books. That's nice! I was getting worried about the people here. ;)
I was beginning to think that it is probably the latest fad in the West to dislike Dan Brown and his books. Some kind of status symbol. If you like his books you are sneered upon and no one talks to you any more and people walk away if you enter the room or something. :D
In any case, the herd mentality is clearly in evidence here because there is absolutely no reason to ridicule and belittle Dan Brown and his books the way many of you are doing.
I am certain that it is his balanced approach to religion, science and atheism that is getting to you people. Laughing at someone is normally a way of getting over ones fear or envy.
There is nothing wrong with his style or his english (Most people here....Englishmen and women at that.... cannot write a straight paragraph in good english I have noticed...no offence!).
At any rate...please do try to read his new book. He discusses the issue of whether religion would be eliminated by science and technology.....and concludes that it is not likely.
Cheers guys.
Sriram
Just accept it Sriram that other people don't like his books or writing style. Its nit herd mentality at all, just a reflection of a number of individual's views. To react like you have and look fir reasons why people don't agree with you is very immature. Very adolescent behaviour.
-
You people have a very high opinion of yourselves but I have to point out that this is not a discussion about literary matters. Which author is better and writes on which subject is entirely irrelevant.
This is the Religions & Ethics board and every day we discuss religion and science. We discuss atheism and its merits or demerits. We discuss Christianity, Jesus, the Church, the Pope and the validity of Christian beliefs.
The genre that Dan Brown writes about are precisely about these matters and that is why this thread has been started on this forum. It is not a general discussion of Dan Brown's or anyone else's writing skills or about books on other subjects.
No one seems to have read the 'Origins'. Fine. But if anyone does, they will find lots of stuff connected to Christian beliefs, Atheism, future of technology, AI and so on. This thread is meant to initiate a discussion on these matters regardless of whether you agree with him or not and whether you like his style or not.
But there seems to have been a cop-out...with lots of bluster and pomposity instead.
Typical!
-
So if the thread isn't about Dan Brown, which ideas in Origins do you think are interesting and what is written about them in Origins that you is good?
-
I've just read the wiki summary of this book and I'm struggling to see it as being any more that a work of fantastical fiction that draws on a mix of scientific and religious themes: an extract from the summary of the plot:
In front of hundreds of millions of viewers, Kirsch explains that he mimicked the famous Miller-Urey experiment and coupled it with various components using the laws of physics and entropy, along with E-Wave's ability to digitally speed forward time, to recreate what he believes is the moment of abiogenesis. This is Kirsch's proof that humanity was created by natural events. He then reveals that in roughly fifty years humanity and technology will merge, hopefully creating a utopian future free of religious conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_(Dan_Brown_novel)
No doubt some might find this fiction entertaining on a personal taste basis - but it clearly isn't science, and nor is Brown any sort of authority on science.
-
I remember watching the original programme on this in the Chronicle series, The Priest, The Painter and The Devil in 1974, entranced at the pieced together and piecemeal story. As it was before videos or indeed frequent repeats, it was 5 years till it and the follow up appeared again, and then this obviously went onto become The Holy Blood and and The Holy Grail. When this become outed as based on a set of frauds which the writers hadn't really made much effort in investigating, it was fair enough, part of the thrill and an informative example of fake news, or rather fake history.
Someone I knew had become very much gulled into believing a lot of this, so one of the reasons I read it was to point out the woo (although of course the woo wird had not been invented then!) contained in it. At the time the critical opposition was difficult to find.
That all of this received a thorough examination in terms of the possibility of hidden truths and a parody thereof in Foucault's Pendulum by Eco, long before Brown vomited his execrable novels on the unsuspecting world like a lovely horse with fetlocks flowing in the wind and having a bad case of food poisoning,
A gloriously magical picture, but I get the impression you did not think much of Dan Brown!!! :D :D
seemed to me to sound the end of such speculative semi histories. How foolish I, the immensely tall reader, was.
The original was just part of a huge swathe of books based on an intention to ignore facts for the sake of sensation from the lunacies of Von Daniken to Graham Hancock to those covered in Them by Jon Ronson such as Alex Jones.
It looks almost funny, with David Icke and his lizards but much of it is tied up in a deluded melange of anti semitism, ethnic tribalism and logical illiteracy. For Brown to come in in his clunky plagiarising fictions and sweep up the witlessness of misunderstandings could be seen as a genius of opportunity, even if the prose and ideas are valueless retreads.
Everybody was talking about the book at the time, though, weren't they? :) As you may know, I have been a member of the Graham Hancock forum since I started with a computer and over the yearsThose with rational views seem to be fewere and fewer, but I persevere because I don't like to leave something after joining. Recently the board called Author of the Month has featured some mind-bogglingly way-out stuff, so I pose some questions which some are offended by and others do not actually read or think about. Rarely are my direct questions answered directly! Have you ever had a look there?
-
Good summary, though I'd say that Graham Hancock was a cut above Von Daniken in his capacity for rational thought (though that's not saying much). Some of his speculations seem reasonable enough, though he does seem a prophet of doom sometimes.
Jon Ronson is absolutely brilliant.
Early on, Graham Hancock used to add a paragraph at the end of each chapter of his books wherein he stated clearly what was verified fact and what was speculation. I gather that this has faded away for quite a long time now. Of course I have not read his books for a very long time.
-
Someone I knew had become very much gulled into believing a lot of this, so one of the reasons I read it was to point out the woo (although of course the woo wird had not been invented then!) contained in it. At the time the critical opposition was difficult to find. A gloriously magical picture, but I get the impression you did not think much of Dan Brown!!! :D :DEverybody was talking about the book at the time, though, weren't they? :) As you may know, I have been a member of the Graham Hancock forum since I started with a computer and over the yearsThose with rational views seem to be fewere and fewer, but I persevere because I don't like to leave something after joining. Recently the board called Author of the Month has featured some mind-bogglingly way-out stuff, so I pose some questions which some are offended by and others do not actually read or think about. Rarely are my direct questions answered directly! Have you ever had a look there?
I looked at it once, I think in response to knowing you posted there. It already had Hancock's writing as a strike against it, and that wasn't helped by the 'if you remove four letters from this, add in the name of my gran's cat and then look at a possible anagram it says 'cheese are four bangers' which must mean that the Illuminati are behind the bike shed and voting desperately for Debbie NcGee on Strictly.' approach.
I loved the whole holy blood stuff as a sort of fiction.
-
Early on, Graham Hancock used to add a paragraph at the end of each chapter of his books wherein he stated clearly what was verified fact and what was speculation. I gather that this has faded away for quite a long time now. Of course I have not read his books for a very long time.
But he always sold and titled the books on the 'speculation' and the speculation always seemed to be designed to sell the books.
-
As Jeremy and others have said, Da Vinci Code was a page turner, even though you knew what was likely to happen, etc. :D
-
Early on, Graham Hancock used to add a paragraph at the end of each chapter of his books wherein he stated clearly what was verified fact and what was speculation. I gather that this has faded away for quite a long time now. Of course I have not read his books for a very long time.
I read "Magicians of the Gods" recently - a few months ago maybe. His books can be interesting, but need to be read as speculative fiction - much the same as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or the Illuminati books. T.Lobsang Rampa's Third Eye books and Carlos Castenda's books are in the same kind of category.
They are not great literature and not at all scientific, but the point of them is to kick the imagination to question things from a different place. Sometimes this is helpful. Some of Hancock's speculation/interpretation on Gobekli Tepe has been supported by professional archaeologists in a study - specifically that they include a record of a comet strike that had a major impact on humans:
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-ancient-stone-pillars-clues-comet.html
Also his underwater explorations are in sync with understanding of post ice-age sea level rise, and archaeologists have been finding quite a lot underwater, over many years now.
Science does not take a straight unerring path. In the 70's and '80s there was a lot of argument about multi-regional human evolution as opposed to out of Africa. This was, to all extents and purposes, won by the out of Africa side, but is now swinging back to the multi-regional or, at least, a combination.
Jean M Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" series was fiction, and contains many laughably impossible descriptions. But, some of her imaginings are now mainstream, including Neanderthal/modern human interbreeding.
Unfortunately Dan Brown is not in the same league as any of these. It is fiction and he knows his readership and how to produce books with enough big scenes, characters and plot twists to keep them entertained. That he gets his ideas out of the aether (he himself is not proposing anything profound or interesting) and has a terrible writing style does not matter. In fact, I would say he is writing for the screen, to get hit movies, not for serious readers.
-
I read "Magicians of the Gods" recently - a few months ago maybe. His books can be interesting, but need to be read as speculative fiction - much the same as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or the Illuminati books. T.Lobsang Rampa's Third Eye books and Carlos Castenda's books are in the same kind of category.
They are not great literature and not at all scientific, but the point of them is to kick the imagination to question things from a different place. Sometimes this is helpful. Some of Hancock's speculation/interpretation on Gobekli Tepe has been supported by professional archaeologists in a study - specifically that they include a record of a comet strike that had a major impact on humans:
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-ancient-stone-pillars-clues-comet.html
Also his underwater explorations are in sync with understanding of post ice-age sea level rise, and archaeologists have been finding quite a lot underwater, over many years now.
Science does not take a straight unerring path. In the 70's and '80s there was a lot of argument about multi-regional human evolution as opposed to out of Africa. This was, to all extents and purposes, won by the out of Africa side, but is now swinging back to the multi-regional or, at least, a combination.
Jean M Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" series was fiction, and contains many laughably impossible descriptions. But, some of her imaginings are now mainstream, including Neanderthal/modern human interbreeding.
Unfortunately Dan Brown is not in the same league as any of these. It is fiction and he knows his readership and how to produce books with enough big scenes, characters and plot twists to keep them entertained. That he gets his ideas out of the aether (he himself is not proposing anything profound or interesting) and has a terrible writing style does not matter. In fact, I would say he is writing for the screen, to get hit movies, not for serious readers.
except the Holy Blodd and the Holy Grail isn't sold as speculative fiction, nor would it make sense to do so being based on a fraud. And Hancock doesn't ever come close to saying - this is fiction.
-
caveat emptor ?
-
You people have a very high opinion of yourselves ...
The phrase including the words Pot, Kettle and Black comes to mind.
-
caveat emptor ?
I've never bought an empty cave!!
-
I agree with you, Trent. Good luck to Dan Brown for cashing in and capturing the imagination of some gullible people for a while - but he's not a 'good writer'. However there's nothing wrong in being a successful popular writer.
What Dicky said on previous page is spot on.
Not everybody who reads Dan Brown is gullible. My brother has read most of his books and he well aware that it's what is known in the trade as "fiction". I've only read the Da Vinci Code and I was well aware that it was fiction before I started.
His books are entertaining nonsense. That doesn't make you gullible any more than watching I'm a Celebrity makes you gullible.
-
You people have a very high opinion of yourselves but I have to point out that this is not a discussion about literary matters. Which author is better and writes on which subject is entirely irrelevant.
This is the Religions & Ethics board and every day we discuss religion and science. We discuss atheism and its merits or demerits. We discuss Christianity, Jesus, the Church, the Pope and the validity of Christian beliefs.
The genre that Dan Brown writes about are precisely about these matters and that is why this thread has been started on this forum. It is not a general discussion of Dan Brown's or anyone else's writing skills or about books on other subjects.
No one seems to have read the 'Origins'. Fine. But if anyone does, they will find lots of stuff connected to Christian beliefs, Atheism, future of technology, AI and so on. This thread is meant to initiate a discussion on these matters regardless of whether you agree with him or not and whether you like his style or not.
But there seems to have been a cop-out...with lots of bluster and pomposity instead.
Typical!
You do understand that Dan Brown writes fiction, don't you?
-
except the Holy Blodd and the Holy Grail isn't sold as speculative fiction
Interesting you should say that. Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code claiming he stole their plot. However, that wouldn't make any sense unless the "plot" of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was fiction. If the plot is actually what really happened in history, you can't really claim intellectual property rights on it.
-
Interesting you should say that. Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code claiming he stole their plot. However, that wouldn't make any sense unless the "plot" of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was fiction. If the plot is actually what really happened in history, you can't really claim intellectual property rights on it.
I don't know the timeline off the top of my head but that of course may have been after the Priory of Sion was exposed as a hoax. Before that of course B, L & L were able to try to pass it off as history.
-
Interesting you should say that. Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code claiming he stole their plot. However, that wouldn't make any sense unless the "plot" of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was fiction. If the plot is actually what really happened in history, you can't really claim intellectual property rights on it.
Indeed.
Worth reading what it says here about the case. And also note that The Woman with the Alabaster Jar was published in 1993 and didn't give rise to any case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lincoln
-
I don't know the timeline off the top of my head but that of course may have been after the Priory of Sion was exposed as a hoax. Before that of course B, L & L were able to try to pass it off as history.
True, but I think this represents the first occasion where they were effectively admitting that the HB&HS is fiction.
-
You do understand that Dan Brown writes fiction, don't you?
Yes..I do. So what?
I still don't understand why such an issue is being made about the book being fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction.
Most of you believe that the Bible is fiction, for heavens sake! So what?
The reason the subject has been posted here is because the book is centered around religion and atheism and science. These are subjects that we discuss here everyday. That's all! ::)
-
Yes..I do. So what?
I still don't understand why such an issue is being made about the book being fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction.
So there is a good chance that what he writes is not true.
Most of you believe that the Bible is fiction, for heavens sake! So what?
It means we don't have to believe it when it says there are windows in the sky where the rain gets in.
-
So there is a good chance that what he writes is not true.
What do you mean? We know that it is not true. There is no one called Langdon or Kirsch. We know that.
The plot could be fiction but the ideological issues raised are still very relevant. The conflicts between religion and science are certainly relevant. The reactions and conclusions of people on either side are very relevant.
These are debates that are usually held only between scholars and so called intellectuals. But Dan Brown has succeeded in bringing them into the public, popular fold. That is a very good thing.
-
Do people still talk about the conflict between religion and science? Gosh, how frightfully quaint.
-
Do people still talk about the conflict between religion and science? Gosh, how frightfully quaint.
How long have you been on this forum?
-
How long have you been on this forum?
My lawyer told me not to answer questions like that.
-
How long have you been on this forum?
Sriram
you seem to be coming in for a lot of stick here so ill just say this ; if you enjoyed the book , good for you and you can take away from it what ever you like and sod the rest . No one is forcing them to read it .
btw , I enjoy Coronation Street , just so's ya know!
-
Sriram
you seem to be coming in for a lot of stick here so ill just say this ; if you enjoyed the book , good for you and you can take away from it what ever you like and sod the rest . No one is forcing them to read it .
btw , I enjoy Coronation Street , just so's ya know!
:D :D
Wondering where you were actually!!
-
How long have you been on this forum?
My lawyer has given way. Do you think that many people actually reject scientific stuff in favour of religion? I know there are people who for example refuse to take medicine or antibiotics, as they prefer to pray. But in a country like the UK, I would say that is quite a minority. There is also stuff such as creationism of the YEC kind, but again in the UK, this is quite a minority, but in the US quite a lot of people. But do they also reject doctors and so on? In other words, there are specific issues where there is disagreement (e.g. evolution), but is this really an overall conflict?
-
My lawyer has given way. Do you think that many people actually reject scientific stuff in favour of religion? I know there are people who for example refuse to take medicine or antibiotics, as they prefer to pray. But in a country like the UK, I would say that is quite a minority. There is also stuff such as creationism of the YEC kind, but again in the UK, this is quite a minority, but in the US quite a lot of people. But do they also reject doctors and so on? In other words, there are specific issues where there is disagreement (e.g. evolution), but is this really an overall conflict?
No...It is not about these things. It is about more fundamental ideas of God and creationism.
Its about ...'where we came from..and where we are going'. That is what the book discusses from the view point of atheists and religious people (Christians basically).
-
No...It is not about these things. It is about more fundamental ideas of God and creationism.
Its about ...'where we came from..and where we are going'. That is what the book discusses from the view point of atheists and religious people (Christians basically).
My impression has been that the notion of such a conflict has been discredited among historians and sociologists and others. There haven't really been such black and white positions - for example, Darwin's stuff was welcomed by many Christians. I don't have links to this at the moment, but will dig some up.
-
No...It is not about these things. It is about more fundamental ideas of God and creationism.
Its about ...'where we came from..and where we are going'. That is what the book discusses from the view point of atheists and religious people (Christians basically).
What leads you to think that Brown in particular has anything interesting or original to say on these issues? His exposition of ideas comes across as though the sum total of his research was a dull Sunday afternoon on Wikipedia.
-
My impression has been that the notion of such a conflict has been discredited among historians and sociologists and others. There haven't really been such black and white positions - for example, Darwin's stuff was welcomed by many Christians. I don't have links to this at the moment, but will dig some up.
I don't think anyone can speak for all Christians in the world regarding this matter.
I am sure there are many orthodox Christians even today who still take the bible literally. And there are many atheists who believe the future is in technology and AI.
In any case, if you are interested I suggest you read the book to see how Dan Brown has dealt with this issue.
-
I don't think anyone can speak for all Christians in the world regarding this matter.
I am sure there are many orthodox Christians even today who still take the bible literally. And there are many atheists who believe the future is in technology and AI.
In any case, if you are interested I suggest you read the book to see how Dan Brown has dealt with this issue.
Why? What argument does he give?
-
Why? What argument does he give?
Just read the book NS or skip it. I am not going to give a synopsis here.
-
Yes..I do. So what?
I still don't understand why such an issue is being made about the book being fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction.
Most of you believe that the Bible is fiction, for heavens sake! So what?
The reason the subject has been posted here is because the book is centered around religion and atheism and science. These are subjects that we discuss here everyday. That's all! ::)
Probably most people do realise that it is fiction, but like you, many of them seem to think that the matters that Dan Brown raises are based on genuine historical and religious research. It is all very well stimulating the general public to take an interest in such matters by means of a piece of page-turning fiction, but when the intellectual basis for such tales is so shoddy, misleading, ill-informed and downright spurious, any potential didactic spin-off is likely to be irredeemably tainted from the start.
It is no coincidence that the genuine (and agnostic) biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman was so concerned over this aspect of Dan Brown's work that he felt the need to write Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code.
https://archive.org/details/BartEhrman-TruthAndFictionInTheDaVinciCode
Fair enough, if you want to recommend a few thrillers to while away the time on holiday (or during our British winter), then I'd welcome the suggestions. But you actually seem to think Dan Brown is a rigorous scholar of history, religion and science as well.
-
Just read the book NS or skip it. I am not going to give a synopsis here.
In which case the thread was and is pointless.
Although some of us guessed as much when it started.
-
Tim O'Neill, the well known historian blogger also wrote a critical blog on Brown. The title tells it all, 'history versus Dan Brown'.
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/chapters.html
-
The trouble is that history is not fixed and keeps changing. This is due to a small nexus near Rennes-Les-Bains. Events leak through but are warped and distorted by the field.
Eventually you get a series of alternate histories arranged like planes, but strung though with wormhole like connections. Only a few, mostly from the gnostic tradition, have understood this. Through the "holes" alternate histories appear as myths - King Arthur stories are some of the most persistent.
Kate Mosse's Languedoc series tried to convey some of this, but unfortunately has itself become fiction. Shame, but still a good read.
-
Just read the book NS or skip it. I am not going to give a synopsis here.
Why should I spend money to give to an author who makes my ears bleed like a buffalo that inadvertently runs into a spiky bush if you are unwilling to state any reason why?
-
I nearly put Mosse's Labyrinth into the worst books section.
-
Ah .. I love that area so bit of a sucker for anything related.
-
Don't disagree - which is why it annoyed me so much. To be fair to the whole sad saga of the Hoky Blood and the Insane Grail, it was something that got me interested in the region and Cathars
Maybe we should have an outing to Rennes Le Chateau. I'll bring the poussins.
-
Just read the book NS or skip it. I am not going to give a synopsis here.
No matter: I posted a bit of the wiki synopsis back in #67, which notes this as part of the plot: 'along with E-Wave's ability to digitally speed forward time' so I suspect we can treat Mr Brown's efforts as fiction - and, to be fair, I suspect he would agree that it was.
-
Maybe we should have an outing to Rennes Le Chateau. I'll bring the poussins.
I'm up for that: I'll pop into the nearest Carrefour or L'Clerc and get the plonk.
-
I'm up for that: I'll pop into the nearest Carrefour or L'Clerc and get the plonk.
just have to be careful of albino assassins.
-
:D :D
Wondering where you were actually!!
Im back on my travels again 👍