click here to skip the menu and go to the page content

rebecca's pocket

about / archive / syndicate

.: May 2006 --> DaVinci Code 'historical background' is wrong

DaVinci Code 'historical background' is wrong

» Part of the appeal of the DaVinci Code is that it purports to offer a glimpse into secret societies and hidden history. Instead, a group of Christian scholars say that author Dan Brown got key historical background events wrong.
 [ 05.03.06 ]


I've read some books from the same author. None of his book impressed me much. In short: They're crap.

Whenever he tries his hand at techno-, science-, history-, or art-babel it becomes clear very soon that he didn't do much, if any, research.

While he may have some elementary knowledge, he does not understanding this subject at all. More then that, he demonstrates a clear disregard for the facts to a point that no part of reality remains.

This is more then artistic freedom to project beyond the knowledge of today like Stephen King or Michael Crichton do. Dan Brown however is being dishonest towards his reader, because while most readers know that "the story" is only fiction, they however expect "the world" in which the story is told to be plausible or at least posible to some extend. Especially when the author refers to objects which really exist the world should be accurate enough to fit a plausible interpretation, however far fetched, of the facts.

The world of the Da Vinci Code is however neither plausible nor posible: Most factual information is wrong, often obvious even if one has only some superficial knowledge of the subject.

OK. I'll bite.

"they however expect "the world" in which the story is told to be plausible or at least posible to some extend"


If I read ANY novel in the thriller genre I do NOT expect it to be solely based on my experience of a "plausible world". I read books like Dan Browns to be entertained. If I want to read books that are more plausible I'll read... ohh I dunno... JK Rowling? ;-)

The Da Vinci Code, for what it is (a "novel".. look it up) is a reasonable example of the genre. Beyond that, inaccurate facts and dishonesty to the reader are, I'd suggest, the remit of the reader to decide. And if they can't make the distinction between reality (plausible world) and FICTION, then isn't the problem largely with the reader?

(an aside: Rebecca, the grey underlined links keep making me think I've already visited the site linked to.. I know you have a legend on show but it still makes me pause, how about a different colour?)



» primary link / supplemental information / internal link

my book

» the weblog handbook
amazon editors' best of 2002, digital culture

recent posts