Recently, twyls and I got a couple of Dan Brown books as a gift from a friend of mine. We’ve been meaning to read some of his stuff for some time, so we dove right in. For the record, Angels and Demons (2000), is about a plot to destroy the Vatican with an anti-matter bomb and The Da Vinci Code (2003), is about a race to uncover the Holy Grail.
Without further ado, here is one of our patented double reviews…
Jrob16: So, Dan Brown. What’s up with that guy?
Twyls: Dan Brown is a pop artist. He writes for the masses, but I think he really digs his subject matter. He just got lucky in that his subject matter intrigued the popular audience when it did. He was a little too mediocre for me, however. He reminded me of Michael Crichton, actually.
Jrob16: How so?
Twyls: Very poppy. His writing seems almost intimidating, but it’s the subject matter that is tough, not the writing style. He brings it down to a level where the less experience reader might feel stretched
Jrob16: What genre would you call it?
Twyls: Suspense.
Jrob16: That’s too generic, I’m think I’d call it a religious thriller. No, how about a theological thriller?
Twyls: I like theological thriller, though I would lean more towards conspiracy thriller, myself.
Jrob16: Well, it’s definitely new territory. Or, at least it was when he started getting popular in 2000.
Twyls: True enough. I somehow doubt it was entirely new, but it was at least timely. People were probably looking for conspiracies then. I think people like Dan Brown’s writing because it feels accessible, but it also makes you feel like you’re figuring things out. Not just in the book, but in the world. Of course, that can be dangerous.
Jrob16: Well, that’s were I have a problem with it. I like his stories, but they’re definitely fiction with real-world settings used as window dressing.. Now, I’m smarter than the average bear (Leonardo da Vinci is one of my favorite historical persons), so I can call Brown’s BS pretty much immediately, but someone less knowledgeable could easily think all the crazy conspiracies he references are real.
Twyls: Exactly! Even someone who just doesn’t care about that particular area of interest might have problems distinguishing fact from fiction.
Jrob16: Didn’t take umbrage with the “FACT” pages from the front of the books…
Or was that me?
Twyls: Yeah, that they are both annoying and entirely misleading. I especially like the one about how all the artwork is described perfectly.
Jrob16: You mean it wasn’t?
Twyls: After reading his description of Madonna on the Rocks I looked it up. It looks NOTHING like he described!
Jrob16: Well, I liked that he referenced some great works of art that some people might not know about. I thought it was educational..
Twyls: Yes, if only they were as accurate as he described. Looking up the one picture made me skeptical of all of his “facts”.
Jrob16: Ok, let’s go into the individual books. You can pick which one to start with.
Twyls: Overall thoughts of Angels and Demons?
Jrob16: This one was just okay to me. I didn’t like the anti-matter bomb plot device because it seemed too hokey. I did like the race around Rome, though.
Twyls: I liked this book much better than The Da Vinci Code. We talked about how Brown gets tired by your second reading of him. I read Angels and Demons first, and you read the Da Vinci Code first.
Jrob16: Yes. I liked The Da Vinci Code much better. The plot was less action-oriented and much tighter. And I think it came together much better in the end. What were your thoughts on Angels and Demons?
Twyls: I had no real problem with the book as pure entertainment. I actually had some fun reading it.
Jrob16: Well, what were your favorite parts?
Twyls: I liked the characters, though I did think Langdon was a little too easy to like.
I’m not huge on the flawed hero thing, but it felt like Brown’s characters were a little flat
I really liked the girl, Vittoria.
Jrob16: Yeah, Sophie (from the Da Vinci Code) was pretty much just a cypher for the reader.
Twyls: What do you mean?
Jrob16: JShe was there just so Robert Langdon could give background information and explain everything to the reader. Like a sidekick.
Twyls: Yep. She was a plot device. That annoyed me.
Jrob16: Ok, enough about the women, what about the villains. What did you think of them?
Twyls: You mean the Albino and the Hassasin?
Jrob16: Well, them, and the masterminds too..
Twyls: Let’s start with the Albino and the Hassasin. I much preferred the latter.
Jrob16: You think he was a better villain or a better character?
Twyls: Both, to an extent. I could understand his motivation. The Albino you either felt sorry for because he seemed to be driven insane, or you simply hated him because of his religious zealotry. He didn’t appeal to me. At least the Hassassin was an interesting take to me.
Jrob16: Nah, he was just a regular psychopath to me. I liked the Albino because at first I didn’t like him, but at the end I felt sorry for him. There was also a little more background to him that rounded out his character more.
Twyls: I felt like Brown was trying to manipulate my emotions at the end with the Albino. At least with the Hassassin I was interested in the history of his people.
Jrob16: Hmmm, we’ll have to disagree on that one. What about the masterminds and conspiracies?
Twyls: I prefered the big twist villain at the end of Angels and Demons. I won’t give away the ending, but I really didn’t see it coming. I know you did…
Jrob16: Maybe that’s because Brown kinda follows the same pattern as in the Da Vinci Code. It’s always someone you trust!
Twyls: Yeah.
Jrob16: So, what about the conspiracies? Where they gripping, realistic, silly? Interesting?
Twyls: Silly. He has a way of sucking you in while you’re reading, though, so they didn’t feel as unrealistic at the time as they did looking back.
Jrob16: See that’s why I’d have to say he’s a good writer. He can definitely get the reader hooked. It’s just the bombastic nature of the plots that goes over the top. And the fact that he tries to present it as fact and not fiction.
Twyls: It’s true. But I wouldn’t say he’s good because it doesn’t hold up. I couldn’t re-read the books. He’s good at what he does, but I have trouble using the term good and writer together with him.
Jrob16: Well, it’s very entertaining and easy to read, unlike some books I’ve read, so you can’t just dismiss his skill.
Twyls: I don’t know. Maybe I’m just stuck on snob mode tonight. Tell me, how you would sum up Dan Brown’s style to someone who hasn’t read him yet?
Jrob16: Well, he takes legends and rumors from the real world and makes a fast-paced thriller out of them.
Amanda: You forgot to mention conspiracies! You know something we haven’t really talked about, though? The way I believe Brown uses his narrative to speak out against the Church, while having his protagonist, Langdon, relatively neutral.
Jrob16: Okay, go for it.
Amanda: This is perhaps what gets under my skin the most with his writing. It’s subtle because he never really says anything using his main mouthpiece, Langdon, against the Church. He uses his plot to speak for him. I’m not Catholic, but the somewhat deceptive way he manipulates his audience really annoys me.
Jrob16: Or it could just be that the Catholic Church is such an easy target. When you need a group that has a global level of reach, there’s not a lot to choose from in the real world.
Amanda: It just seems underhanded. I guess if he didn’t want to go the obvious route with terrorists or evil governments, evil religious folks are a good way to go.
Jrob16: Yup. Well, we better wrap this up one more time before it gets too long. Would you recommend his books? Do you want to read his new one, the Lost Symbol?
Amanda: I do want to read Lost Symbol, but not until after a long break. I would recommend his books to those who like their books light and don’t necessarily want to put a lot of thought into them – those who just want to be entertained.
Jrob16: I agree. They’re fun to read, but I don’t think they’ll become classics. And just be sure that you don’t believe everything you read.
To Charles Fort with Love (2005), by Caitlin R. Kiernan, is the first of three books from Subterranean Press which I intend to review. I picked this trio up from the library (along with half a dozen others) a while ago, and it was a happy coincidence that they were all published by the same outfit. There are 13 short stories in this tome, and here is what I thought of them…
This story, Mouse Guard: Fall 1152, was originally published by Archaia Studios Press in 2006 as a six issue series. While several characters are introduced throughout the book, I will outline the the three main protagonists. First up is Kenzie (the gray-furred one) – the mature, thoughtful leader of this particular Mouse Guard patrol. Next up is Saxon (the brown-furred one) – a brash but brave soldier who often clashes with Kenzie. Finally there is Lieam (my personal favorite) – the youngest member of the Mouse Guard and still learning the ways of the world.
Tales of Suspense #39 – “Iron Man is Born”
Finally, after a year of blogging (and 50 some posts) here is our first co-book report. Showing the different ways two people can react to the same work of fiction was the original impetus for creating this blog. Of course, since this is our initial offering, there
Coming just six months on the heels of his reintroduction in Avengers #4, Captain America’s gets his own series of solo adventures (and gets to share the cover with Iron Man) in Tales of Suspense. This volume collects the first 23 ten-page stories from the 1960s.