I imagine a few people have read at least one of his books.  I happen to have read two.  The Da Vinci Code, and Angels and Demons. 

I wasn't a fan of either of them.  The story telling was rather dull.  Robert Langdon always had information he could have shared that would have cut the plot by a few chapters.  The writing was at times awful.  Just the way he'd begin some sentences.  And I wouldn't criticize him for that if he weren't a best selling author.  The books themselves were just... dull in my opinion.  I can understand the appeal to some people -- the cliffhanger at the end of most chapters.  It can keep some people on the edge of their seat.  

Worst of all, I think, though were the historical inaccuracies.  And those would normally be fine in a work of fiction, but Dawn Brown likes to state that he did his research.  It's gotten so bad that there's a Trope that is called Dan Browned.  He often goes far off from the truth, and of course he makes the claim that he's 99% accurate.  Which leads to people thinking things happened that really didn't. 

But that got me to thinking.  What other book makes those same claims?  Well other than a lot of them.  Most importantly: The Bible.  It makes those claims.  And it made me wonder if Dan Brown was being clever with it.  Trying to say "A book isn't true just because it says it's true."  Now, I'm not sure he's actually that clever.  But I can't help but wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- the message of his books is not to take claims at face value.

I thought The DaVinci Code was a very cool movie - as long as you accepted that it was fiction and didn't try to square it with actual history. Didn't care for Angels and Demons though.

Pap literature.

His only redeeming feature is that he annoys the jesus freaks.

Well, Dan Brown's books are clearly labeled as fiction.

I enjoyed Angels and Demons for the sheer wackiness, didn't mind Da Vinci Code, largely for the same reasons. Deception Point, Digital Fortress and Lost Symbol I really struggled with.
Going from memory, one thing I noticed was that everything was a huge deal. It all seemed to have a very strange view of the world, like everything was in a sense of absurdly heightened reality. Hard to explain, but I hope you know what I mean.

I have enjoyed each of his books. I liked his most recent book, Inferno, dealing with overpopulation, as it didn't end how you might think it would.

I enjoy them for what they clearly are, which are genre fiction chase thrillers. If I try to read anything more into them, I'd probably be disappointed in them. One thing he is pretty accurate on is architecture and cityscapes, and he is really good at transporting you to Venice, Rome, DC, Paris, etc.

(August 31, 2015 at 12:56 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I have enjoyed each of his books. I liked his most recent book, Inferno, dealing with overpopulation, as it didn't end how you might think it would.

I enjoy them for what they clearly are, which are genre fiction chase thrillers. If I try to read anything more into them, I'd probably be disappointed in them. One thing he is pretty accurate on is architecture and cityscapes, and he is really good at transporting you to Venice, Rome, DC, Paris, etc.

That's me. I also enjoyed them for what they are, fiction. I haven't read "Inferno" yet. It's on my list, but keeps getting pushed back by Sci-fi and Fantasy titles.

It seems to be the in thing lately to "bash Dan Brown." I can understand that not everybody will like his books, but he gets as much bashing as Stephanie Meyer. Brown may not be the best author ever, but compared to a hack like Meyer (yes, I've read her tripe) he's a Pulitzer candidate.

There is nothing wrong with the Twilight Saga either. >.>

Angels&Demons is my guilty pleasure. As a trained particle physicist, I don't notice the historical inaccuracies so much next to Brown's ridiculous grasp of physics

(August 31, 2015 at 1:21 am)Kitan Wrote: There is nothing wrong with the Twilight Saga either.  >.>

Nope. Nothing at all.



































































Except that someone actually published it.