Does anyone here have a thing for Dan Brown's thrillers? I personally find them very breathtakingly exciting. Da Vinci Code was a good book, and so was Digital Fortress, but the BEST one I've read so far is Angels and Demons. But the thing with these thrillers is, you really can't bring yourself to re-read them. You have to wait another few months until you actually feel like you want to re-read them. Because only then can you be thrilled all over again! But still, it does get kinda boring once the first time is over...
So I guess even though I love reading Dan Brown's books, I can't bring myself to say they're my all-time favourite or the kind that gets etched into me and influence me much. Does that make them bad books? I dunno...the books reflect actual technology/history and all that, and I have learned a great deal about the Vatican through Angels and Demons, but somehow I can't bring myself to say they're THAT merited.
Thoughts?
Thread: Dan Brown
Hey Clover 
I DO agree with you .They are very exciting to read but after I have read them ,I do not pay much attention to them anymore except when others are discussing the books .Though I find it interesting to read about the Vatican and some of it's secrets and it makes me want to visit the Louvre to see for my self What I also like about the books are I have to read the entire book before putting it down
I DO agree with you .They are very exciting to read but after I have read them ,I do not pay much attention to them anymore except when others are discussing the books .Though I find it interesting to read about the Vatican and some of it's secrets and it makes me want to visit the Louvre to see for my self What I also like about the books are I have to read the entire book before putting it down
I've read the four DB-books. I found 'Da-Vinci' and 'Demons' fascinating. But then I was foolish enough to read some of the "code-cracking-bursting-understanding-crap" which followed and that was the long road down. That learned me to enjoy DB, and as entertaining novels and leave it there.
I think Da Vinci code is rubbish, it's nothing more than a rip-off of Holy blood, holy grail which itself is based on Pierre Plantard's fabrications.
The line "this book is based on facts" in the beginning, is just hilariously grotesque. It's all based on lies by a Frenchman who desperately wanted attention (and money), instead.
Much better and less populistic is The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova.
The line "this book is based on facts" in the beginning, is just hilariously grotesque. It's all based on lies by a Frenchman who desperately wanted attention (and money), instead.
Much better and less populistic is The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova.
be it a true story or not, its still a good one
I agree with Virumor. It is purest rubbish. With this addendum: If this book had been written by Brown to caricature and vilify Islam, there would have been no end to the imams calling for action. If it had been written about Israel, he would have been labeled anti-semitic and his book would have been banned. But because he has attacked under cover of fiction the Catholic Church, the Vatican, the life of Christ, etc., his work is hailed as great and a movie is made of it. And when Catholics and other Christians defend their faiths against this blasphemy, they are called religious fanatics, simpletons unable to appreciate literature, censors of the freedom of speech, etc. But I would like someone to write a nasty novel about Dan Brown and make that into a movie and see who laughs then!
I still like it as a story, but a mean novel about dan brown sounds good too
I like those two Dan Brown books as only fictional thrillers. For the best DaVinci Code debunker you might try Sharan Newman's The Real History Behind the DaVinci Code. She is a medieval scholar and her book is written like an encyclopedia where she picks apart each of the numerous discrepancies in an easy to read and understand language. 
My faith is strong enough that I took no umbrage with Dan Brown's book, and thought those that did were giving him more credit than he deserved. They drove more of their followers to read his book than they would have had they just ignored it. But that is just human nature.
My faith is strong enough that I took no umbrage with Dan Brown's book, and thought those that did were giving him more credit than he deserved. They drove more of their followers to read his book than they would have had they just ignored it. But that is just human nature.
I haven't read Da Vinci Code. I read the first couple of chapters of Angels and Demons and lost interest. I don't intend reading any more of Dan Brown's books. I have read Holy Blood, Holy Grail - not a particularly easy book to read and as Vir said, it is fictional as is Dan Brown's. Whether Dan Brown says his book is based on facts as a ploy to gain interest or not is debatable but I would certainly take that sort of statement with a very large bucket of salt.
I can't quite put my finger on why I didn't enjoy A&D. Maybe the plot and characters were too cliched or maybe the constant aggression irritated me
There are many books along the same theme but Dan Brown probably had the better Publicity Agent.
Please remember that religious discussion is not allowed on PT for the very reason that people can get extremely upset/angry/annoyed when their religion is questioned.
I can't quite put my finger on why I didn't enjoy A&D. Maybe the plot and characters were too cliched or maybe the constant aggression irritated me
There are many books along the same theme but Dan Brown probably had the better Publicity Agent.
Please remember that religious discussion is not allowed on PT for the very reason that people can get extremely upset/angry/annoyed when their religion is questioned.
I'd certainly welcome a novel sassing Dan Brown too. I mean, I see his picture and if I were to judge by looks, he definitely seems too smooth to be sincere. So I bet there are a lot of juicy parts to his life that the media can pick out one by one... But I still think that his books are enjoyable reads...the first time.
That was the original topic was it not , wether the books were good or not ? I think so
Indeed, and that is why some people have already expressed their disgust.
One man's meat is another man's Dan Brown.
Especially when your plane has crashed in the middle of the Andes.
And still we stand for our own likes and dislikes, I believe. I am very glad we are individuals allthough we share many interests.
Quote:
Especially when your plane has crashed in the middle of the Andes.
Especially when your plane has crashed in the middle of the Andes.
That brings to mind another book, the Lord of the Flies... you haven't been going down the road to savagery, now have you, Vir?
Lord of the Flies does not take place in the Andes, but on a (sub)tropical island. I was talking about survival, not savagery.
Quote:
I was talking about survival,
I was talking about survival,
If I ain't quite mistaken someone wrote something like "Survival of the fittest"; makes still a lot of noice in some communities I believe!
I wish I had read Angels & Demons and the Da Vinci code before visiting the Louvre and the Vatican (among other places) this past summer, not after. But I have read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and agree that Dan Brown plagiarized (and commercialized) it.