The Bishop

Seriously, you really will just have to take people's word for it. Dan Brown's writing does, in fact, cause pain, principally to lovers of real literature and of the English language. Seriously, nobody would have found anything remotely difficult to accept regarding beliefs or disbeliefs in only ten pages of a novel. It's the truly atrocious writing that does that. However, give DB his due, I managed to get past 10 pages, and in fact read the whole thing in practically one sitting. He does write a page-turner, as long as you can "close your ears" so to speak, to the literary infelicities.

In my view, apart from the dreadful demonstrations of appalling ignorance, the worst thing about Dan Brown's writing is the way everything is hyped up so much. The decoding of atbash Sheshak in the book of Jeremiah to Babel wasn't "interesting" or "noteworthy" or "fascinating" - it was "mind-boggling". Even on his website, he describes his friend Langdon's ambigrams as "astounding", as opposed to the merely "quite clever and very well done" that I feel describes them more than adequately.

Amaleq13

I will second, third, and fourth that opinion. I was genuinely interested in reading them despite their blatant proselytizing agenda and I also have a huge weakness for End Of The Word stories but I couldn't read 20 pages of the first book. IMO, Brown's is better written but I still wouldn't give it more than a "C".

darstec

Nice stab, but no cigars. While you gave the impression that the writing was poor you were actually arguing content. For instance you state that no Englishman would use a stretch anything, yet a simple Google search shows 49,000 websites devoted to UK stretch limos. Surely all of them are not supported by California pimps.

You also take issue with the 'vaulted archway' as though there is no such thing however in descriptions of the Taj Mahal, praca da republica elvas alto alentejo, Arc de Triomphe, a tavern along Caesar's Way, the Tholsel, and several hundred more descriptions and pictures, if one cares to explore the Internet. Strike two (or is that three? but let us continue).

You have a problem with Dan Brown using the word "renowned" as though that is a mark of poor literary skill. Therefore what are we to think of and I could go on and on, but why bother we all know what crappy literature shakesphere writes, don't we?

And you failed to fulfill the second part of the request, i.e. giving examples of how your designated examples could be better written.

But then you aren't really concerned with literature anyway are you? As further indication you are concerned with content and not the writing skill you write: that my friend is a religious statement and does not address writing style.

darstec

Could you please name "every single element" and state why they are "completely wrong" in your quote?

darstec

According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm, http://www.catholic.org.nz/pope/election.htm, http://www.osv.com/catholicalmanac/conclave.asp, http://www.religionfacts.com/christi..._elections.htm, http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/20050421.html and practically every other reference one might care to look up, seems to think that the term 'candidate" aptly describes the cardinals under consideration to be pope. So I think that point is rather moot.

Now as to "preferiti", the document at http://web.mit.edu/boojum/vatican/scenario.pdf has this to say: . My goodness both preferiti and candidate in the same paragraph talking about papal elections! Don't those damn universities check their facts? But then the writer of that piece is a Jesuit and they might not even be Catholic, as the saying goes.

And to nitpick many authoritative sources (thousands of them) refer to the candidate as Papabili instead of papabile. But then that is a comparison of Italian to Latin.

RUmike

What is your fascination with this book and how great it is? I can't believe you're defending this statement. Perhaps you don't know what Q actually was.

Q is a hypothetical document, that if once existed in written form -- which most scholars would agree with -- is probably no longer extant. As of yet no copy has ever been found. And if found, it would not be some secret finding that make Brown's story more true any other such thing: it would actually confirm what the vast majority of scholars already believe! Plus, we already have most, if not all, of Q embedded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke (albeit in modified forms).

Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus composed Q. When I read that line in the bookstore I actually laughed out loud. The claim is beyond ridiculous, and doesn't even deserve serious refutation. What is the evidence in favor of this position, anyway? None is presented whatsoever.

When Brown (or rather, Teabing) claims that "most people did [make chronicles about their ministries] in those days", he is completely wrong. Most people in those days could not write. Also, Q is not a "chronicle of His ministry" at all. Although there seems to be a logical progression through some of the pericopes, it probably contains little to no narrative material whatsoever.

Haran

I actually found the Da Vinci code to be a fairly pleasant and interesting read. It was not meant to be literature along the lines of Dostoyevsky or Mellville. It was meant to read like a movie so that it would become a movie.

One thing that has truly puzzled me is all the claims of it being bad literature. What are they comparing it to? I have heard a lot of these claims but I haven't yet heard anyone really present any decent examples (I read the review recently posted in this thread but I didn't, personally, find it very convincing...).

I did find the Da Vinci Code's descriptions rather lack lustre, but the book still entertained me. As to the "history" presented in it, I find it frustrating that anyone would take it at face value (aside from Dan Brown claiming in the front that the history is based on fact, a rather misleading statement). It is fiction and meant to be fiction. If someone wants to learn history, then they should read a history book, not a fictional novel.

darstec

I'm sorry, perhaps it's the amnesia but could you point to the post wherein I stated that the book was great? Growing older does play tricks with the mind and I may have just forgotten that I made that claim. What statement do you think I am defending? You haven't made that clear.
And perhaps I know far more about Q than you will ever know. However I know nothing about you, and have nothing to validate that.

Thanks for the explanation, but I assure you with my background, education and contiinued study your explanation was hardly necessary. But you have me confused. Are you saying that most scholars would agree that Q is a document or is it that they would agree that Q is a hypothetical document? In the above you assert that I might not know what Q actually was, and now in this statement you appear to state most scholars agree it is hypothetical. That seems to be contradictory as "was" assumes actuality not hypotheticalness.

If nobody has ever seen Q, how could they determine it contained most or all of what is already in the gospels? And not knowing everything that was contained in this document (for which there is no evidence, only presumption) how can we be so sure there is nothing secret that could upset the applecart? I think most scholars because they are employed by religious foundations and institutions must believe in a Q because it throws the Jesus story to a much earlier time than the second century where the Jesus fable was developed from whole cloth.

I will wait for The Bishop to reply before responding to this part. In the meantime, might I suggest you reread that paragraph I outlined several more times, a bit more comprehensively. You then might discover why this last quoted remark is not applicable.

darstec

Exactly. It was intended to be a movie and was picked up rather quickly by none other than Ron Howard who has directed some rather good movies.

I've asked this question more than once myself. In reply I get either a religious defense or an attack on the "facts" but few examples as to bad writing. And of course, nobody will demonstrate how that passage could be made into good literature which leads me to believe they don't know how to write those passages any better.

If it is going to be a movie, most of the characterization is going to be rewritten anyway. Look at what Jackson did to The Lord of the Rings.

I believe there is a very good reason why Dan Brown claims there are facts -- controversy. He could not have afforded the publicity he is getting now, even if he were a billionaire. Look at all the scholarly tomes that are virtually ignored by the Church and Christians, but might have as controversial ideas. And look at how many "scholars" are almost household names (even my sister has the DVC and three other books debunking it) because they are attacking the book, and whom few people have heard of before outside of some very exclusive religious institutions. Heck, they should be sending Dan Brown a check for the success of their books.

I'll bet the movie is a huge success too. We like fiction. We like to be entertained. Unless I am wrong about orcs, wizards and magic rings and they actually exist. I forget, but did J.R.R. Tolkien write up front his trilogy was fiction? Did his characters make inaccurate statements?

EthnAlln

Well, judging by appearances, one would say so. Unfortunately, there are preliminary sketches of the work by Leondardo in which that character is labeled "John."