NOGO

The problem is this.
I have read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail some time back. I know that this book is highly speculative. I am also relatively well informed. I was able to pick out many factual errors.
But many people who read the book will accept at face value statements which appear to be factual.
I call this misinformation.
Was misinformation the author's purpose?

cognac

Naah, it's called fiction. For someone relatively well informed, you need to get a clue.

blues runner

This was the first Dan Brown I read. Conceptually, I rather liked the idea, found it entertaining. Also, I usually seem to appreciate any work of art that's bound to get a rise out of certain groups who may or may not take themselves too seriously (the church?).

Really now, if all these critics of Brown's work are so secure in their beliefs (and confident in their ability to convert others, as they seem to be) why the fuss? Chill the hell out; it's a fictitious novel. I actually took the time to look up some of the criticism on the Internet and laughed out loud several times at how viciously threatening some particularly self-absorbed, infantile wankers perceived this novel to be to their beloved institutions.

However, that aside, I think Dan Brown leaves a lot to be desired as far as literary style. He's downright jejune at times. I remember high school Honors English classes that demanded more prolific writing than that found in The DaVinci Code. But, for what it is...a gutsy and entertaining work.

Note: If you want to read an unusual but truly brilliant book, check out Infinite Jest, by David Foster Wallace.

cognac

You might be on to something.

StaticAge

I think Foucaults Pendulum is much better to boot! The Da Vinci Code is entertainment, and it does a pretty good job, but I actually liked the "Angels and Demons" one more. And Eco's work is more fun than either of them.

NOGO

Perhaps you need to be less naive and recognize misinformation for what it is.
The cover of fictional work does not forgive the misinformation.

I have no ax to grind here. I have absolutely no affinity with any religious organization present or past. I have no problem with the speculation about Jesus being married to Mary Mag and having children etc. I have a problem with erroneous statements presented as fact which the uninformed reader has no reason to believe are anything but true. I have come across several such readers and therefore know that what I am saying is not unlikely nor far fetched.

Let me put it another way.
People usually understand that Jesus married to Mary Mag is speculation.
They may wish to believe or not to believe.
But these same people take as fact the bit about Constantine and other similar statements. Most people simply do not expect to be lied to.

cognac

Hmm. This is at least interesting. Conspiracy, eh? I hadn't thought of that before. Dan Brown is intentionally misleading us because he wants naive people to believe untruths about Constantine. Is that what you believe?

StaticAge

You know, calling a work of fiction "a lie" implicates it may possess the authority as something factual. It is a work never claiming itself as "true" and by making a big deal out of an apparent dislike for the elements the story uses for its own ends, you embue it with the very qualities you claim it doesnt possess, that even the author never claimed for it. Was it George Braques who said to the effect that science exists to reassure, and art exists to disturb? Let it disturb you as art then, and leave entertainment where it belongs instead of making it as though it deserves some sort of "truthful" inquiry.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, prax. I guess what interests me is the sociological aspect, watching how suddenly scholars generally on opposite sides all line up together. Dan Brown should get some kind of award....

Ponzi

I think you guys who are saying that people are stupid because they believe a work of fiction are missing the point.

The book may be fiction, but it draws upon real history (and speculative pseudo-history). Thus people will be wondering how much of it is true. Plus there are many works of fiction that do present real history as a background to the story.

So those who believe it is all real may not be the brightest people around, but they aren't completely stupid.