 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23628/masons-brace-for-new-dan-brown-novel
Wait don't tell me, some Mason who's the last living descendant of Solomon is about to carry out a centuries-old vendetta against the Vatican... 
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 04:29 am |
|
I dunno, I thought both the da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons were very readable and enjoyable thrillers. I plan on reading the next one.
Then again, as international thrillers go, James Twining's The Double Eagle was one of the better ones I've read in a while.
-- A2SG, he has two others with the same character, too....
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21st, 2009 03:28 pm |
|
They read OK as thrillers, and the movies were pretty good that way too, as long as you can get past all the inaccuracies. I have trouble with that. 
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 04:20 am |
|
I tend to take the facts in thrillers with a grain of salt anyway. The way I see it, they're stories, not encyclopedias. If playing with the facts makes for a better story, I have no problem with that.
Remember the Kevin Costner Untouchables movie? In that movie, Billy Drago played Frank Nitti, who had a pretty spectactular death being thrown off a roof. Pretty cool.
Well, except for the fact that, in reality, Nitti survived to become the head of Capone's mob after a brief jail term (though some say he was only a figurehead), only to kill himself (supposedly) in 1943.
-- A2SG, frankly, the courthouse roof death was a better one....
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 05:31 pm |
|
I don't recall Costner or DePalma claiming that movie's version of events is entirely factual. Brown's portrait of the Catholic Church is deliberately intended to make it seem worse than it actually was/is, and he claims it's entirely true.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 07:27 pm |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: They read OK as thrillers, and the movies were pretty good that way too, as long as you can get past all the inaccuracies. I have trouble with that.
I can't stand "Hollywood History" films. They tend to be riddled not only with inaccuracies but with heavy-handed propaganda.
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 08:51 pm |
|
I read The DaVinci Code....didn't enjoy it enough to want to read Angels and Demons.
Been on the waiting list at the library for Time Traveler's Wife for over a month now. I don't even know what the book is about. I just heard it was good.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 10:30 pm |
|
| I liked that one, more romance than science fiction despite the title and premise, but defying the conventions of both genres. Or so I thought.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 04:30 am |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: I don't recall Costner or DePalma claiming that movie's version of events is entirely factual.
Nor did Dan Brown.
Brown's portrait of the Catholic Church is deliberately intended to make it seem worse than it actually was/is, and he claims it's entirely true.
No, he doesn't.
From his website:
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.
My point being that just because certain facts are used in a work of fiction, that doesn't mean all of it is factual, or intended to be.
-- A2SG, and further, if the internet has proven anything, it's that just because someone calls something a "fact," that don't make it so....
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 04:32 am |
|
Carol2 wrote: I read The DaVinci Code....didn't enjoy it enough to want to read Angels and Demons.
Been on the waiting list at the library for Time Traveler's Wife for over a month now. I don't even know what the book is about. I just heard it was good.
It's a love story between a woman and a man who skips through time. Excellent novel, by the way.
-- A2SG, haven't seen the movie, though, but I heard it was good.....
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 05:38 am |
|
I think it was you who first mentioned the book here long ago, but I keep hearing that it's good. Must be, 'cuz I can't seem to get my hands on it.
Books are always better than the movie. There's more substance to them.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 02:22 pm |
|
While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.).
Which is different from what he says in the preface: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Yet anyone who's actually studied the paintings and architecture or read scholarly historical sources knows that descriptions of them in the novel are wildly wrong.
Then there's this in the preface to Angels & Demons: "References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). [...] The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual." Yet anyone who's actually been to the Vatican or read scholarly history of the Illuminati knows the first sentence is a flat-out lie and the second deceptive at best.
As for the films, watch the Illuminati featurette from the Angels & Demons website, with director Ron Howard: "The Illuminati was formed in the 1600s. They were artists and scientists like Galileo and Bernini whose progressive ideas were threatening to the Vatican. [...] The early Illuminati were persecuted by the Church; they were hunted down, even executed and driven underground." Doesn't he seem to be talking about the actual Illuminati? Again deceptive at best, since Brown's depiction of them is utter bullshit according to scholarly sources.
I don't see how anyone who knows something of Church history wouldn't see The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons as anti-Catholic, specifically anti-Vatican. They're works of fiction, yes, but polemical ones.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:42 am |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.).
Which is different from what he says in the preface: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Yet anyone who's actually studied the paintings and architecture or read scholarly historical sources knows that descriptions of them in the novel are wildly wrong.
Such as?
Then there's this in the preface to Angels & Demons: "References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). [...] The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual." Yet anyone who's actually been to the Vatican or read scholarly history of the Illuminati knows the first sentence is a flat-out lie and the second deceptive at best.
As to the second, he only states that it exists, nothing more. As to the first, I've never been to Rome so I have no idea how accurate his description of the architecture or the tunnels are. What specific errors did he make, out of curiosity?
As for the films, watch the Illuminati featurette from the Angels & Demons website, with director Ron Howard: "The Illuminati was formed in the 1600s. They were artists and scientists like Galileo and Bernini whose progressive ideas were threatening to the Vatican. [...] The early Illuminati were persecuted by the Church; they were hunted down, even executed and driven underground." Doesn't he seem to be talking about the actual Illuminati? Again deceptive at best, since Brown's depiction of them is utter bullshit according to scholarly sources.
Of course it is. Angels and Demons is a work of fiction.
I don't see how anyone who knows something of Church history wouldn't see The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons as anti-Catholic, specifically anti-Vatican. They're works of fiction, yes, but polemical ones.
So?
An author's first job is to tell a good story. Brown did that. If he used controversy to sell a lot of books, then more power to him, I say.
I have no idea what Dan Brown's personal opinion of catholicism or the Vatican is, and I don't care. I follow Niven's Law when reading books, especially controversial ones:
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."
If you don't like his books, for whatever reason, that's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. I don't know if Brown's descriptions of the art or architecuture is as accurate as he claims....ultimately, it made no real difference to me. The descriptions of the art and the architecture, accurate or not, wasn't a major problem. I found both Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code to be fun, enjoyable stories, and that's all I really need a novel to be. I've read better, I've read worse.
It's kinda like reading mysteries set in Boston. I love 'em, but sometimes, even Robert Parker gets something wrong. I remember a while back, reading a book (I forget the author, no one I've heard of since) that said Arlington was on the North Shore. I lived in Arlington at the time, too. While this kinda thing can be a little annoying, it's not enough to ruin a novel for me.
-- A2SG, granted, that book was terrible, but the geography wasn't the reason.....
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:48 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 09:27 am |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: _Ammon_ wrote: While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.).
Which is different from what he says in the preface: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Yet anyone who's actually studied the paintings and architecture or read scholarly historical sources knows that descriptions of them in the novel are wildly wrong.
Such as?
Such as the Last Supper depicts not Mary Magdalene but the apostle John as per description in the gospel attributed to him, the Mona Lisa wasn't named until after Leonardo's death, the Virgin of the Rocks can't be removed as is described, Gothic architecture has neither Templar influence nor female sexual symbolism other than what might have been derived from its actual Greco-Roman influence, the Old Testament doesn't describe Noah as albino, no Q gospel exists to afford description and no scholarly source supposes Jesus himself wrote it, nowhere near 80 other gospels are even mentioned in any scholarly source or combination thereof, the Bible was canonized over 80 years after Constantine's death, the Gnostic gospels don't promote the sacred feminine, the gospel of Philip was written in Coptic not Aramaic and doesn't describe Jesus kissing Mary on the mouth, the gospel of Mary doesn't say she and Jesus were married, the Dead Sea scrolls predate Jesus so they don't even mention him, the Nag Hammadi scrolls don't describe him as any less supernatural than canonical sources, no alleged royal bloodline for Jesus and Mary Magdalene has been chronicled by any accredited historian, there's no record of Templars ever finding 'sangreal documents' under the Temple, there's no record of Jews performing ritual sex in the Temple, 'Shekinah' is not a name for a feminine aspect of 'Yahweh' and was not worshipped in the Temple, 'Yahweh' has nothing to do with male-female union but is based on the words for 'being' and 'lord', the Tarot was not invented to secretly communicate heretical ideas, the Opus Dei is a lay organization without monks and women can freely enter its headquarters' front doors, the Rennes-le-Château parchments about the 'Priory of Sion' were exposed as fraudulent a decade before the novel was published and no such organization even existed at all. I could go on. Then there's this in the preface to Angels & Demons: "References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). [...] The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual." Yet anyone who's actually been to the Vatican or read scholarly history of the Illuminati knows the first sentence is a flat-out lie and the second deceptive at best. As to the second, he only states that it exists, nothing more. Coming after the description "entirely factual" and preceded by "also", I think it's obvious this is deceptive at best, your mileage may vary. As to the first, I've never been to Rome so I have no idea how accurate his description of the architecture or the tunnels are. What specific errors did he make, out of curiosity? The Pantheon is south not north of the Piazza della Rotunda and he has other details about it wrong, St. Agnese in Agone is west not east of the Piazza Navona, the staircase to the Vatican Museums isn't Michelangelo's and he has other errors about the museums, details of the Forum and St. Peter's Basilica are wrong, St. Maria del Popolo isn't where the novel has it and isn't as old, etc. If you tried to follow the path of the characters in the story (which is essential to part of the plot) you wouldn't be able to do it.
As for the films, watch the Illuminati featurette from the Angels & Demons website, with director Ron Howard: "The Illuminati was formed in the 1600s. They were artists and scientists like Galileo and Bernini whose progressive ideas were threatening to the Vatican. [...] The early Illuminati were persecuted by the Church; they were hunted down, even executed and driven underground." Doesn't he seem to be talking about the actual Illuminati? Again deceptive at best, since Brown's depiction of them is utter bullshit according to scholarly sources. Of course it is. Angels and Demons is a work of fiction. Presented as if it were based on fact, again deceptive at best.
I don't see how anyone who knows something of Church history wouldn't see The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons as anti-Catholic, specifically anti-Vatican. They're works of fiction, yes, but polemical ones. So? So I find them annoying, as I said.
An author's first job is to tell a good story. Brown did that. I disagree, because they have so many inaccuracies in them, it's almost impossible for a reader who knows better to maintain suspension of disbelief. If he used controversy to sell a lot of books, then more power to him, I say. Whatever floats your boat, but in mine a writer who deliberately distorts the truth is an asshole. Catholic family and friends of mine encountered prejudice from coworkers and acquaintances because of Brown's books. All he had to say was a standard "this is a work of fiction thus art, geography and history as presented herein is not intended to be taken as fact".
I have no idea what Dan Brown's personal opinion of catholicism or the Vatican is, and I don't care. I follow Niven's Law when reading books, especially controversial ones:
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'." Yeah, I know Niven's Laws, I'm one of the people referenced here. But I'm not talking about characters' viewpoints, I'm talking about their author being a liar. For example, Brown's site has a Q&A section for Angels & Demons, and the first Q is about how he was 'inspired' to write the novel -- but Il Passetto isn't a tunnel under Vatican City, it's a raised covered walkway between the Vatican and Castel sant'Angelo, it couldn't have been used as an escape route by early Popes because it wasn't even built until the 13th century and no 'scholar' giving a tour of it would spout the bullshit Brown claims he found so inspirational.
If you don't like his books, for whatever reason, that's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. I don't know if Brown's descriptions of the art or architecuture is as accurate as he claims....ultimately, it made no real difference to me. The descriptions of the art and the architecture, accurate or not, wasn't a major problem. I found both Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code to be fun, enjoyable stories, and that's all I really need a novel to be. I've read better, I've read worse.
It's kinda like reading mysteries set in Boston. I love 'em, but sometimes, even Robert Parker gets something wrong. I remember a while back, reading a book (I forget the author, no one I've heard of since) that said Arlington was on the North Shore. I lived in Arlington at the time, too. While this kinda thing can be a little annoying, it's not enough to ruin a novel for me. I can see how readers and viewers could appreciate them as thrillers, but since the plots hinge on artwork and architecture, I thought the many flaws destroyed the stories.
-- A2SG, granted, that book was terrible, but the geography wasn't the reason..... I stopped reading Parker a long time ago, coincidentally around the time Urich started playing Spenser on TV.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 10:21 am |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: _Ammon_ wrote: While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.).
Which is different from what he says in the preface: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Yet anyone who's actually studied the paintings and architecture or read scholarly historical sources knows that descriptions of them in the novel are wildly wrong.
Such as?
Such as the Last Supper depicts not Mary Magdalene but the apostle John as per description in the gospel attributed to him, the Mona Lisa wasn't named until after Leonardo's death, the Virgin of the Rocks can't be removed as is described, Gothic architecture has neither Templar influence nor female sexual symbolism other than what might have been derived from its actual Greco-Roman influence, the Old Testament doesn't describe Noah as albino, no Q gospel exists to afford description and no scholarly source supposes Jesus himself wrote it, nowhere near 80 other gospels are even mentioned in any scholarly source or combination thereof, the Bible was canonized over 80 years after Constantine's death, the Gnostic gospels don't promote the sacred feminine, the gospel of Philip was written in Coptic not Aramaic and doesn't describe Jesus kissing Mary on the mouth, the gospel of Mary doesn't say she and Jesus were married, the Dead Sea scrolls predate Jesus so they don't even mention him, the Nag Hammadi scrolls don't describe him as any less supernatural than canonical sources, no alleged royal bloodline for Jesus and Mary Magdalene has been chronicled by any accredited historian, there's no record of Templars ever finding 'sangreal documents' under the Temple, there's no record of Jews performing ritual sex in the Temple, 'Shekinah' is not a name for a feminine aspect of 'Yahweh' and was not worshipped in the Temple, 'Yahweh' has nothing to do with male-female union but is based on the words for 'being' and 'lord', the Tarot was not invented to secretly communicate heretical ideas, the Opus Dei is a lay organization without monks and women can freely enter its headquarters' front doors, the Rennes-le-Château parchments about the 'Priory of Sion' were exposed as fraudulent a decade before the novel was published and no such organization even existed at all. I could go on.
Seems to me your inaccuracies are more about interpretation. For example, the Last Supper: Brown chose to interpret the painting differently than most art historians do, just as he chose to interpret the rest of those facts and events differently from other historians and experts.
I don't see a problem. That is, after all, what fiction writers do: make shit up. It's pretty much the job description.
Then there's this in the preface to Angels & Demons: "References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). [...] The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual." Yet anyone who's actually been to the Vatican or read scholarly history of the Illuminati knows the first sentence is a flat-out lie and the second deceptive at best. As to the second, he only states that it exists, nothing more. Coming after the description "entirely factual" and preceded by "also", I think it's obvious this is deceptive at best, your mileage may vary.
I don't know if you were deceived, but for my part, that bit didn't dissuade me from knowing the book was fictional.
As to the first, I've never been to Rome so I have no idea how accurate his description of the architecture or the tunnels are. What specific errors did he make, out of curiosity? The Pantheon is south not north of the Piazza della Rotunda and he has other details about it wrong, St. Agnese in Agone is west not east of the Piazza Navona, the staircase to the Vatican Museums isn't Michelangelo's and he has other errors about the museums, details of the Forum and St. Peter's Basilica are wrong, St. Maria del Popolo isn't where the novel has it and isn't as old, etc. If you tried to follow the path of the characters in the story (which is essential to part of the plot) you wouldn't be able to do it.
Well, it didn't ruin the book for me, is all I can say. It was still an engaging thriller.
As for the films, watch the Illuminati featurette from the Angels & Demons website, with director Ron Howard: "The Illuminati was formed in the 1600s. They were artists and scientists like Galileo and Bernini whose progressive ideas were threatening to the Vatican. [...] The early Illuminati were persecuted by the Church; they were hunted down, even executed and driven underground." Doesn't he seem to be talking about the actual Illuminati? Again deceptive at best, since Brown's depiction of them is utter bullshit according to scholarly sources. Of course it is. Angels and Demons is a work of fiction. Presented as if it were based on fact, again deceptive at best.
Well, to be precise, it was presented as based on certain interpretations of fact. Not the same thing. But even if you legitimately thought he based the plot on facts, well, so what? Does his moving certain buildings around make the story less enjoyable, the plot less exciting?
Remember the fiction writer's first priority: telling a good story. Factual accuracy is, well, a lot lower down on the list of priorities.
I don't see how anyone who knows something of Church history wouldn't see The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons as anti-Catholic, specifically anti-Vatican. They're works of fiction, yes, but polemical ones. So? So I find them annoying, as I said.
And I didn't. No big deal, really...both of us are equally entitled to our opinions.
An author's first job is to tell a good story. Brown did that. I disagree, because they have so many inaccuracies in them, it's almost impossible for a reader who knows better to maintain suspension of disbelief.
I had no such problem.
If he used controversy to sell a lot of books, then more power to him, I say. Whatever floats your boat, but in mine a writer who deliberately distorts the truth is an asshole.
Then you must consider ALL fiction writers to be assholes, as that's what fiction IS.
One of my favorite mystery series is Max Allan Collins' Nate Heller series. In those books, Collins puts his detective at the heart of many famous mystery cases, such as the Lindbergh kidnapping, Al Capone and Eliot Ness, etc. In one book involving the Black Dahlia case, Heller is revealed to have had a past sexual relationship with the Dahlia, Elizabeth Short. Now, I wasnt' there, but I'm pretty sure Short didn't sleep with a fictional detective who was created years after her death. However, despite this distortion of truth, I was still able to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the book.
Catholic family and friends of mine encountered prejudice from coworkers and acquaintances because of Brown's books. All he had to say was a standard "this is a work of fiction thus art, geography and history as presented herein is not intended to be taken as fact".
The fact that the book is labeled as fiction says exactly that. I dunno about you, but the bit about how he says he described the art and architecture accurately didn't make me think the book was non-fiction.
I have no idea what Dan Brown's personal opinion of catholicism or the Vatican is, and I don't care. I follow Niven's Law when reading books, especially controversial ones:
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'." Yeah, I know Niven's Laws, I'm one of the people referenced here.
Cool.
Gotta say, though, that I'm not a fan of Niven myself. I've tried to read a couple of his books, but found them impossible to get through.
But I'm not talking about characters' viewpoints, I'm talking about their author being a liar. For example, Brown's site has a Q&A section for Angels & Demons, and the first Q is about how he was 'inspired' to write the novel -- but Il Passetto isn't a tunnel under Vatican City, it's a raised covered walkway between the Vatican and Castel sant'Angelo, it couldn't have been used as an escape route by early Popes because it wasn't even built until the 13th century and no 'scholar' giving a tour of it would spout the bullshit Brown claims he found so inspirational.
Have you ever heard of the mystery writer Lawrence Block? One of my favorite writers. He once wrote a book about writing entitled Telling Lies for Fun and Profit.
Fiction writers are liars. It's in the job description.
I heard once that whenever someone asks Harlan Ellison where he gets his ideas, he says "a warehouse in Cleveland."
If you don't like his books, for whatever reason, that's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. I don't know if Brown's descriptions of the art or architecuture is as accurate as he claims....ultimately, it made no real difference to me. The descriptions of the art and the architecture, accurate or not, wasn't a major problem. I found both Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code to be fun, enjoyable stories, and that's all I really need a novel to be. I've read better, I've read worse.
It's kinda like reading mysteries set in Boston. I love 'em, but sometimes, even Robert Parker gets something wrong. I remember a while back, reading a book (I forget the author, no one I've heard of since) that said Arlington was on the North Shore. I lived in Arlington at the time, too. While this kinda thing can be a little annoying, it's not enough to ruin a novel for me. I can see how readers and viewers could appreciate them as thrillers, but since the plots hinge on artwork and architecture, I thought the many flaws destroyed the stories.
And I didn't. Granted, I like it when fiction writers do the best they can to get factual information correct, I just don't worry much about it when they don't.
-- A2SG, granted, that book was terrible, but the geography wasn't the reason..... I stopped reading Parker a long time ago, coincidentally around the time Urich started playing Spenser on TV.
I dunno...I didn't think Urich was a bad Spenser. Sure, he wasn't as tough or as big as Parker describes him, but I thought he got the sardonic wit down pretty well. Better than Mantegna anyway. I had a bigger problem with Barbara Stock as Susan, frankly. But I think we can both agree, Avery Brooks had Hawk down cold.
As to the novels, I still read them from time to time...but the series definitely peaked with Valediction.
-- A2SG, just don't ask me WHY I still read them...I can't figure that out myself.....
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 11:20 am |
|
I'm going back to lurking, but to sum up: good fiction writers aren't liars in the sense of claiming details or elements of their stories are fact when they aren't, and Dan Brown does this in spades so I think he's a shitty writer and an asshole of a human being besides. Again of course your mileage may vary. Enjoy.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 11:36 am |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: I'm going back to lurking,
That's a damn shame. I've thoroughly enjoyed conversing with you.
but to sum up: good fiction writers aren't liars in the sense of claiming details or elements of their stories are fact when they aren't, and Dan Brown does this in spades so I think he's a shitty writer and an asshole of a human being besides. Again of course your mileage may vary. Enjoy.
Well, I've never met the man, so I can't say a thing about him personally. But I've never let an author's personality interfere with my enjoyment of their work.
For example, I enjoy the work of both Walt Disney and Richard Wagner even though both were, apparently, anti-semititic.
-- a2SG, oh well,....
|
Current time is 04:47 pm | |
|
|
|
|
