Origins

[Shaker]

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.

[Sriram]

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?

[Shaker]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Shaker]

Another beauty: https://tinyurl.com/hv44nrh

[Shaker]

I've read worse. A lot worse!

Oh, so have I, believe you me 

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Gordon]

Another beauty: https://tinyurl.com/hv44nrh

That is an absolute hoot: my sides are sore from laughing!

[floo]

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!

[SusanDoris]

And given the Da Vinci Code is based on a known fraud?

It certainly helped to have read all about that background stuff!

[Sriram]

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!

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walter]

That is an absolute hoot: my sides are sore from laughing!

Ernie Wise is spinning in his grave 😱

[Maeght]

I don't - I'm all for intelligent and renowned people.

This thread is about Dan Brown, though.

 

[Maeght]

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!

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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

[Enki]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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".

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!