Dan Brown Novels are...?

[Phototoxin]

Dan Brown - "this fictional book is factual." Also ninja albino monks working for the Vatican? Digital fortress I just had to put down it was utterly predictable.

In addition there is a consistent theme of pseudo-intellectual surrogate for the author who cannot figure the obvious puzzle out and then the dominant dark haired hot chick who can and then they get together...

 

[BringBackBuck]

I haven't read any of Dan Brown's books, so I really don't know how to feel about them. I do, however, know how Stephen Fry feels about him (he says it at about 0:25).

Brilliant. Stephen Fry really does have a way with words.

Sadly, Dan Brown doesn't. I read Digital Fortress and it was probably one of the worst books I have ever read.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Dan Brown novels are...?

Formulaic.

I read them out of order, sure. Angels and Demons first, Da Vinci Code last, other two... who cares? They're all pretty much the same.
Alright to waste a bit of time on but they're not exactly a particularly nutritious brainfood.

 

[Korenith]

Dan Brown novels are...
fun
non-factual
sometimes exciting
readable in one sitting
not in any way to be taken seriously
not worth anyone getting their pants in a twist about

Frankly i can't see why there are such a big deal, there is less fact and more sensentionalist bull on the History Channel than there is in his books.

I think the big deal is the same as in every case of a "poorly" written book getting a lot of hype/coverage/praise. If something is genuinely amazing then most people will go "well it's not for me but I can see why people like it" but if it's bad or even just sort of mediocre then people get angry because it supposedly diverets attention away from good books/movies/game/whatever. Apart from hipsters of course. They'll hate anything successful on principle.

 

[Benni88]

Entertaining yes, Well written nooooooooooooooooo.

 

[Valthek]

Dan Brown Novels are made of paper
that is all

 

[Keneth]

Spoiler

Robert Langdon, the foremost expert on the totally not made up field of "Symbology," is called upon to solve a mystery. An ancient "Secret Society" that everyone knows about and probably doesn't really exist anymore is going to do something really bad.

The only way "Professor" Langdon can solve the mystery is by running around an old city with a beautiful woman. This woman just so happens to know a whole lot about whats going on, but won't be of any real use whatsoever. She will screw up the "Investigation," get beat up, or knocked out a number of times, though.

They look at a bunch of old building, sculptures, and paintings to find the "Hidden Symbols" put into them by the artists that created them. This helps them solve the mystery, beat the crazy henchman that was chasing them around, and find out that the Big Bad Guy that started the whole mess in the first place was just some guy they thought was helping them.

After that Robert and the pretty lady have sex in a fancy hotel. THE END.

P.S. The Catholic Church is a bunch of crazy assholes.

There. You've just read every book Dan Brown ever wrote.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Dan Brown novels are predictable and really poorly written. They're also written by a complete douchebag, but I guess that's not something to judge the books by. Mind you, most thrillers I've read that weren't written by Stephen King or Robert Harris have been poorly written.

 

[AlotFirst]

The Lost Symbol made every atom that is devoted to making my body function cringe.

 

[Bobic]

To be fair, does it really matter if the conspiracy uncovered is actually true? It's not a non-fiction book, it doesn't have to be factual. Do people complain about Indiana Jones finding the Ark of the Covenant, something which factually doesn't exist?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the book, I just think it should be disliked for the right reasons.

That COULD have been a valid argument, if Dan 'Loose Stool Water' Brown hadn't trumpeted how supposedly 99% of The Da Vinci Code was factually correct, when in fact the opposite was true. Heck, I'm pretty sure Paris doesn't actually exist just because it appeared in that book.

There's even a trope named after that bastard because of the shit he pulled. He lied, plain and simple.

Actually, it was a guy called Pierre Plantard that lied. Dan Brown didn't invent the theory at all.

http://www.cracked.com/article/157_5-myths-that-people-dont-realize-are-admitted-hoaxes/ (entry number 3

Edit: Thought it would be fair to say he perpetuated the lie, which he probably new to be untrue, it'd just lead to more sales.

I still stand by the fact that that doesn't make the book bad though, it makes the man bad.

 

[Gigano]

...rather fun pieces of same'y pulp adventure literature that has by now long outstayed their novelty.

 

[AbstractStream]

I liked Angels and Demons when I read it. Haven't read it again in years so I forgot a lot of the details. I wonder if I'll still like it when I read it again.

The DaVinci Code was alright, I suppose. Big fuss over nothing.

I haven't read the new one. What is it? Lost Symbol? Yeah, I don't see myself reading it anytime soon either.

 

[OriginalLadders]

I've read four of his books and I have to say that Dan Brown is a good writer, if you only ever read one of his books.

The four books I read all had the exact same formula. On the third book I was able to guess who the real bad guy and unexpected ally were, the fourth book was just a chore to read; I only bothered because I'd already paid for it.

 

[Talshere]

An entertaining fiction providing your into that sort of thing.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

...pseudo intellectual tosh that I was quite fond of when I was slightly younger and significantly more stupid.

 

[s0p0g]

his books have educational parts?
oooh, you mean this stuff about this biiig conspiracy spanning the centuries, ultimately leading to a modern-day high-tech paper chase... riiiight ^^

no, seriously, the davinci code was kinda-sorta entertaining, and the movie was enjoyable, too

but the rest was too academic for me *cough*

and just in case this might gotten wrong: no, i ain't saying you cannot enjoy his books, but please, don't count them as slightly simplified versions of stuff they teach at universities

like photon-torpedoes, warp-engines, changelings, your DNA getting screwed because you went with warp 10, stuff like that - yes, that's the same league. as are dragons, orks, elves, swords and all the other stuff fantasy HAS to be made of (for decades meanwhile), but i'm digressing

 

[Luke3184]

Distinctly mediocre... I mean I liked 'Angels and Demons' well enough when I was younger but after reading a few more that my mother thrust upon me at a later date... Nothing stood out, at all. That's pretty much it, now back to 'A Dance With Dragons', now that is a good book.

 

[Theta]

Dan Brown Novels are...?

Not are. IS. That's more or less one and the same story.

This. I read the Da Vinci Code, thought it was okay. Then I read Angels and Demons, thought it wasn't bad but got this nagging feeling. Then I read Digital Fortress and realized I'd read pretty much the same book three times. Then I forgot all about Dan Brown and his Book.

 

[Avatar Roku]

dan brown writes movie scripts ... not books.

Which makes it really weird that, while the Da Vinci Code book was passable, the movie was a steaming pile of shit. Go figure.

 

[Avatar Roku]

EDIT: whoops, Forums dun goofed. Ignore this