Dan Brown: Our First Intellectual Debate
Intellectual Debate #1: Dan Brown
Today we'll be having our first of many intellectual debates. Today's topic is Dan Brown, an author who has caused much division among scholars. Ellie will be attacking him, while Gretchen defends. This is a heated issue, and we'd love to hear from our dedicated viewers in the comments what they think about all of this.
Gretchen: In Defense of Dan Brown, Master Historian
High-speed capers intertwined with mind-boggling history. Nobody does it better than Dan Brown.
While no critic would call his prose elegant, he can spin a story. I often see reviews of his work where readers gripe about the unrealistic plot, the constant, unrelenting action, or elementary writing. One could even call Brown’s work a fanfiction of his own personal fantasy, seeing as he and his protagonist Robert Langdon bear a striking resemblance to one another, right down to their turtlenecks and Harris tweed. But does that devalue Brown’s work, and the effort and tireless research that went into writing his books?
The DaVinci Code, and the Beginning of My Obsession
I have read The DaVinci Code several times over the past few years. It was not so much the action part of the story that enthralled me, but the history. I remember coming away from my first reading convinced that the Last Supper by Leonardo DaVinci contained Mary Magdalene, and that she was the wife of Jesus Christ. Now, looking with a more critical eye, I can poke holes in Brown’s theory, though it is no less compelling. More than this, The DaVinci Code inspired me. I was set on being a symbologist like Mr. Langdon, until I found out that there was no such thing as a symbologist, or a class in symbology, for that matter. Reading the book made me eager to learn more, to dive into research and create historical theories for myself. I had never read something so riveting. At the time, I was convinced Brown was the best author out there; nobody could match him. I went through a period when I didn’t read anything, because nothing was as exciting as The DaVinci Code. Soon, however, I found that there were other books out there- and more Dan Brown.
Exploring More
Brown’s three other main Robert Langdon stories don’t hold as special a place in my heart. Inferno was mildly enjoyable, though the suspense was getting old at that point, it being my fourth Dan Brown book in a row. Yet this does not mean that it wasn’t a good story. Just because I could see the tropes more clearly doesn’t mean this wouldn’t be enjoyable for another reader, new to Brown’s work. And Inferno had the same hallmark as all of the others: in-depth research. I learned more about Dante and Florence than I wished to know, all presented in a way that was more accessible than a nonfiction or textbook. Angels and Demons came in third place; I liked the Vatican exploration, but, again, too melodramatic. But this was still a good read, filled with historical information, and at no point did I ever want to put the book down. That brings us to The Lost Symbol, which I like to think of as Brown’s most underrated novel. The fact that it was set in Washington D.C. made it more accessible, being closer to home. I also enjoyed the relationship between Langdon and his female accomplice, Katherine Solomon, more than the other books, because it was focused less on romance and more on mutual connection and bonding over a shared experience. Learning about an organization such as the Masons, who still operate today across the United States, was both fascinating and eye-opening. Not only did The Lost Symbol provide history and context for the organization, it also dispelled myths, such as the Masons being a cult or being evil. I read all of these books in a few days or less. I couldn’t put them down. Even the ones I liked less I still feel have merit and might appeal to other readers with different interests.
What Makes A Good Book?
So why all the hate on Dan Brown? I’ve read classics and novels that claimed to be “the best of all time” that were slow, boring, and didn’t strike a chord with me like Brown’s works. Perhaps this is personal preference, and I’ll be called uneducated, but what defines a “classic” work? Is it simply good writing, or is it the story itself? Is it the context of the book, or the author’s background? Who decides what story persists through decades and gets taught in classrooms? Dan Brown’s books may not have the most complex characters or realistic storylines, but there are hours of careful research, and a story that comes together and leaves the reader with a sense of wonder and greater interest in history. Millions of copies have been sold and films have been made. One could argue that success doesn’t measure quality (I’m thinking specifically of Twighlight and Fifty Shades of Grey), but these are books with substance. Brown knows what he’s talking about, he knows how to write a story that invests the reader, he knows plot and intrigue and flow. Maybe some distinguished professor at a prestigious university won’t hold up the DaVinci Code for their students as the pinnacle of literature, but at the end of the day that’s what they’re going home to read in their free time.
Ellie: Attacking Dan Brown, Master of The Lie
Dan Brown's novels The DaVinci Code and The Lost Symbol, however "page-turning," however "gripping," are nothing more than supermarket literature written for the masses.
Consider first the basic premise of the plot of the DaVinci Code: the Priory of Sion, a supposedly ancient group, was created to protect the Holy Grail, which is not a chalice but rather Mary Magdalene. On a page literally entitled "Fact," Brown asserts that the Priory is a real organization that still exists today. He points to a secret dossier at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, which he claims proves the existence of the occult organization. However, multiple historians have since debunked the assertions, saying that the dossier and other documents describing the Priory were faked by an anti-Semitic mad man. The creator of these documents, Pierre Plantard, who passed away in 2000, was investigated by the French authorities during World War II. According to historian Claude Charlot, Plantard was "...a fantasist; he is not a serious person." Other historians have found no evidence that the Priory of Sion existed before Plantard forged the dossier. The documents, which Brown bases his whole novel around, are pure contrivance. On his website, Brown again claims that the documents at the Bibliotheque Nationale are, in fact, real, and thus prove that the Priory has been around since 1099. It is clear that Brown enjoys blurring the lines between real and fake simply for the enjoyment of his readers. One could argue that he is just using his creative license to write a fictional book-- however, is basing your entire novel on a debunked premise artistic indulgence, or simply falsifying facts to make money? One simply has to jump on Google and do a bit of research to find just how far-fetched Brown's claims are. Indeed, Brown never makes any disclaimer to the fact that the documents had been debunked 30 years before the writing of the book. No author's note, no bibliography, nothing to show the reader that the whole premise of the book is actually a lie. Brown goes so far as to insist that all of his claims are true and impeccably researched, something even the most technologically inept person can prove wrong.
The falsified axiom of the book could perhaps be overlooked if the writing, plot, and character development were decent enough to cover up the lies. Unfortunately, Brown falls short of this necessary requirement by publishing a novel that could best be described as a fourth-grade chapter book or a grown-up Nancy Drew. First and foremost, the writing was simply awful. As a writing professor at Amherst University, one would expect Brown's writing to be decent at the very least. However, as the exception that proves the rule, the prose is dreadful. The book is riddled with italics-- in the first chapter alone, (which is three pages, mind you) there were ten different examples of italicized statements. How could she possibly have counted that many? It cannot be! A sign of a good writer is one who can show, not tell. Brown simply lacks the ability to display to the reader what the characters were feeling, so he reverted to the childish use of italicized thoughts. Gretchen will be mad at my claims! Here is an excerpt from the first chapter.
By the time anyone got to him, he would be dead. Even so, the fear that now gripped him was a fear far greater than that of his own death.
I must pass on the secret.
Staggering to his feet, he pictured his three murdered brethren. He thought of the generations who had come before them...of the mission with which they had all been entrusted.
An unbroken chain of knowledge.
Suddenly, now, despite all the precautions...despite all the fail-safes...Jacques Sauniere was the only remaining link, the sole guardian of one of the most powerful secrets ever kept.
Shivering, he pulled himself to his feet.
I must find some way...
This is an actual excerpt from the actual book. Brown uses THREE italicized statements to tell the reader what the character was feeling. Not only do the declarations add very little to the plot or the character development, but they also become incredibly irksome by the end of the book. Even a half-decent author (think, Paula Hawkins) knows that italics do not lend themselves to satisfactory prose. This trend also continues in The Lost Symbol, where italics are more plentiful than four-syllable words. As a matter of fact, the very first line of the book is: "The secret is how to die."
Needless to say, in italics.
Keeping with the theme of terrible writing, Brown is very fond of textbook-esque soliloquies wherein the characters explain an arcane idea while being chased by the Interpol. McGraw Hill Education would appreciate Robert Langdon to stop reading out of their European history textbook, thank you very much.
Let's also discuss the very stereotypical archetypes of the characters. Robert Langdon, a handsome yet unmarried historian, "Harrison Ford in Harris tweed." *barf*. Sophie Neveu, the brilliant, gorgeous, shockingly single, and frequently underestimated cryptologist. Sir Leigh Teabing, the old philanthropist sidelined by polio, and who was (forgive me, Gretchen) excessively British. The cutesy conversations comparing Oxford and Harvard were so forced that I actually felt constipated. Remy epitomized the stereotype of the stern butler who does as he's ordered, but bitterly (ie, Martin from the Parent Trap, Thomas Barrow, the list goes on). And again, proving that Brown did minimal research but a lot of lying, there are no Opus Dei monks. Although Opus Dei is a real organization, they are not monastic and they definitely do not hire assassins (who also happen to be albino.)
These characters are actually the exact same in The Lost Symbol, albeit with different names. Harrison Ford makes another unwelcome and fairly unwanted appearance. Again, we have the beautiful, brilliant, yet strangely unwed lady, the rich old philanthropist, and the villain with something to prove. Oh, and did I mention the soliloquies, italics, and lack of research? Both books are basically National Treasure, except our handsome Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones is played by the significantly less handsome Nicholas Cage.
Dan Brown has proven twice over that selling millions of copies of a book does not mean it is good literature. The irrefutable and undeniable issues with The DaVinci Code and The Lost Symbol prove that although Brown may have had good intentions with the writing of the book, there is no escaping the lack of research and high-grade prose. No matter how captivating or engrossing a book, the underlying issues simply cannot be overlooked.
Unlike Dan Brown, I actually did research:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-priory-of-sion/4/
https://danbrown.com/the-davinci-code/
That's all folks! Don't forget to put YOUR opinion in the comments. We'd love to hear from you!
-Ellie and Gretchen
Comments
Post a Comment