This week on our Best and Worst series, we have Margaret Yang and Harry R. Campion, co-authors of a science fiction suspense novel, Fate’s Mirror. But they’re not here to talk about their book, no. Yang and Campion are here to share a couple of the best and worst reading experiences that shaped them as readers and writers.
There’s an eerie similarity between the two books.
See if you can spot it…
Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
In high school, my favorite class was church history, which I took for all of 11th grade at my Catholic high school. The subject was basically European history where it intersected with the Catholic Church, which it did every five minutes or so. I loved that class. The dirty politics! The wacky people! The really weird shit that happened! It was awesome.
I’m telling you this to explain that the history and scholarly theories in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code were not new to me. I’d heard it all before. But that’s okay. For most of the reading public, the stuff in The Da Vinci Code was not only new, it was so new it changed their world view. They thought about church history and even about their religious beliefs in a new way, all because of a work of pure fiction. I think that’s pretty cool.
I loved that Dan Brown crammed so much history and art history into a thriller package. I always thought the “thrill” in thrillers had to be based on spying or politics or war. I never knew that it could be based on history and art and religion. Sure, the entire novel is one big chase scene, but the heroes are racing to solve puzzles, not to shoot things.
I also appreciated that The Da Vinci Code was a fast read. I read the entire book in two or three days. The cliffhangers at the end of every chapter made me want to read just a few more pages (which of course ended in cliffhangers themselves) until I’d raced through the book. I didn’t mind the flat dialog or the shallow characterization or the silly coincidences, because man, that book moved.
The biggest problem most people had with the book was the way that Dan Brown took liberties with the facts, blending them with theory and speculation and stuff that he plain made up. Entire tomes were published soon after The Da Vinci Code trying to rebut it point by point. These people just didn’t get it. Blending fact and fiction is what thrillers are supposed to do. For example, nobody criticizes Tom Clancy’s books for being unrealistic. Readers know that a Russian naval officer can’t steal a nuclear submarine and defect with it. They go along for the ride, knowing it could never happen, but loving how the story made it seem possible. I knew perfectly well that Dan Brown was telling me a story, but every single page perched right on the edge of probable. And isn’t that what we read novels for?
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The Da Vinci Code did not get my back up because it provided glib talking points for pseudo-history buffs who don’t actually read history. It did not rub me the wrong way when it proclaimed in pompous, matter-of-fact tones only the most sensationalized tidbits gleaned from Biblical apocrypha. It did not even grate my ass like a hard cheese when its characters bumbled from one serendipitous focal point to the next with the grace of a child drawing a line from one numbered dot to another using a ruler and an unsharpened crayon.
No, I have to say Dan Brown lost me early on when he decided to manhandle his exposition with a gratuitously-placed flashback. Professor Landon clumsily recollects a few moments spent with one of his Harvard classes. In that scene, the professor engages in witty repartee with his students about the Fibonacci sequence while they gasp and goggle at him with rapt sycophancy. Landon’s efforts (and Brown’s) are rewarded with the info-dump chanted back at him like verses from a well-trained Greek chorus.
Jesus…Brown got paid for that.
It’s probably because I’m a teacher, but the scene bore about as much resemblance to an actual teaching environment as Sookie Stackhouse bears to Mina Harker.
Also, I’m convinced that the commercial success of The Da Vinci Code somehow made National Treasure a marketable franchise—some things I cannot forgive, even of Nicholas Cage.
—-Harry R. Campion
Hah!! Good post!
I come down much closer to Harry than to Margaret on this one. Like everyone else, I read The Da Vinci Code and in the end, I thought it was okay as thriller-fluff. It certainly wasn’t worthy of becoming an international phenomenon, but focusing on conspiracies and Jesus was a brilliant move on Brown’s part.
In the end, I give the idea of the plot a B+ and the execution of it a D. In many ways, the book succeeded (as much as it did) in spite of Brown’s clumsy prose and painfully stilted dialog.
Looooved this post! Very clever.
My only real problem with this book is that every man over forty who lives in my town has decided that he’s the next Dan Brown (I live about 40 minutes from him). I can’t remember the last time I sat in a restaurant without having to overhear some pseudo intellectual spouting about how he could’ve “wrote it better.” That’s usually when I reach around and smack him upside the head with the obligatory copy of The DaVinci Code sitting beside him.
Yeah, we’re hostile up here in the NH. Keeps us warm.
Loved this post. I know I have to accept that I can’t please everyone when I write, but this helped me accept that not even Dan Brown can (and I have loved his books, including “The Da Vinci Code”)
You have been listed on our blog as one of our top twelve favorites. http://ermiliablog.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-versatile-lovely-blogger-awards/
I land squarely at Camp Anti when it comes to Dan Brown. The whole book is based on a theological non-sequitur – that can be forgiven in imaginative fiction, and indeed I applaud his ability to come up with a yarn – but what really irks me is his delivery, the style of which is execrable. I’d go and find the book and give you an example but, honestly, I feel dirty when I pick it up!
I was fairly neutral when I read the Da Vinci Code–it went by so fast I didn’t have the time to muster up a good hatred. Made it halfway through Digital Fortress on a long train ride, though, which confirmed everything the Antis have to say. The close-book-in-disgust moment for me was when the perky-breasted nuclear physicist wrinkled her pretty little forehead in bewilderment as the night janitor casually pointed out the solution to the problem she’d been struggling to figure out.
I liked it for some of the same point that you mentioned, the melding of hisotry and of art history to a story about the artifacts and how they cary such meaning. I mean for someone who’s obsessed with stressing the importance of art I rather liked that. However, I think that all the hype actually is what turned me bitter about the book. I liked that I could privately smolder over it and think about it, but instead the whole world was running to tell their own ideas. Kind of took the fun out of it.
But I agree with both sides of the argument, DaVinci Code had it’s good moments and it’s bad ones.