This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/16/dan-brown-inferno-plot-to-influence

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Dan Brown still can't write, but he deserves some respect Dan Brown still can't write, but he deserves some respect
(4 months later)
Novelist Dan Brown's success merits some investigation. His work has been panned, mocked, and imitated by a cottage industry of conspiracy-touting historical fiction that has profited from his example. Now, in his guarded New Hampshire estate, Brown wakes at 4am each day to start writing, plotting yet more conspiracies. Though he takes a break each hour to exercise, he never ceases to amass greater fortunes. As his latest book, Inferno, debuts, questions naturally follow: what sets his books apart? What is he up to? Is this whole thing a conspiracy?Novelist Dan Brown's success merits some investigation. His work has been panned, mocked, and imitated by a cottage industry of conspiracy-touting historical fiction that has profited from his example. Now, in his guarded New Hampshire estate, Brown wakes at 4am each day to start writing, plotting yet more conspiracies. Though he takes a break each hour to exercise, he never ceases to amass greater fortunes. As his latest book, Inferno, debuts, questions naturally follow: what sets his books apart? What is he up to? Is this whole thing a conspiracy?
Besides featuring parody-worthy prose and Robert Langdon, turtleneck-fond protagonist, Brown mainly does two things in his novels: solve mysterious riddles and blur fact and fiction.Besides featuring parody-worthy prose and Robert Langdon, turtleneck-fond protagonist, Brown mainly does two things in his novels: solve mysterious riddles and blur fact and fiction.
Readers and authors of all stripes have always loved puzzles and mysteries, so Brown's not unique here. Agatha Christie wrote novels in which the reader plays the sleuth; you meet suspects and search for patterns and slips, and there's almost invariably a finale that tests your own conclusions.Readers and authors of all stripes have always loved puzzles and mysteries, so Brown's not unique here. Agatha Christie wrote novels in which the reader plays the sleuth; you meet suspects and search for patterns and slips, and there's almost invariably a finale that tests your own conclusions.
But Brown offers only the appearance of a mystery. He leaves a trail of breadcrumbs that only look like clues to the reader, like a scrap of papyrus or a "cryptex". Answers only arrive via plot twists or obscure, often fictional, bits of knowledge thrown in from the blue. As such, his protagonists need to know odd trivia, like what the absence of a cup in a painting might mean, or they need to turn that papyrus upside down. This might look like a new take on the detective novel, but the story ends up more like an exciting scavenger hunt. Less rewarding, less work, but still fun.But Brown offers only the appearance of a mystery. He leaves a trail of breadcrumbs that only look like clues to the reader, like a scrap of papyrus or a "cryptex". Answers only arrive via plot twists or obscure, often fictional, bits of knowledge thrown in from the blue. As such, his protagonists need to know odd trivia, like what the absence of a cup in a painting might mean, or they need to turn that papyrus upside down. This might look like a new take on the detective novel, but the story ends up more like an exciting scavenger hunt. Less rewarding, less work, but still fun.
Could it be Brown's style that has won him such success? I don't mean his actual writing, but rather his way of putting facts, wild speculation and fiction into a blender and pressing "chunky". Particle physicists capture antimatter; assassins steal it; the pope wants it to reach God. Leonardo Da Vinci heads a secret sect which guards the true history of Christ's family. Unsurprisingly, Slate made a Dan Brown plot generator.Could it be Brown's style that has won him such success? I don't mean his actual writing, but rather his way of putting facts, wild speculation and fiction into a blender and pressing "chunky". Particle physicists capture antimatter; assassins steal it; the pope wants it to reach God. Leonardo Da Vinci heads a secret sect which guards the true history of Christ's family. Unsurprisingly, Slate made a Dan Brown plot generator.
It's fun for the stakes to be ridiculously high, yet Brown stirs controversy because he takes big, beloved things – religion, art, history and science – and uses them to color his books like a coat of paint. Though he says, "I blend fact and fiction in a modern and efficient style to tell a story," it'd be more accurate to say he blends factoids into his fiction, and then stamps it with real names.It's fun for the stakes to be ridiculously high, yet Brown stirs controversy because he takes big, beloved things – religion, art, history and science – and uses them to color his books like a coat of paint. Though he says, "I blend fact and fiction in a modern and efficient style to tell a story," it'd be more accurate to say he blends factoids into his fiction, and then stamps it with real names.
"Fact," he writes before Inferno, "all artwork, literature, science, and historical references in this novel are real." This is a little disingenuous, but not wrong: in the most superficial sense, he alludes to real things. But the meaning he invests in them – and which set off controversies and annoy people – remain all his own inventions."Fact," he writes before Inferno, "all artwork, literature, science, and historical references in this novel are real." This is a little disingenuous, but not wrong: in the most superficial sense, he alludes to real things. But the meaning he invests in them – and which set off controversies and annoy people – remain all his own inventions.
At first, Brown tried to soften outrage by sensibly pointing out that his books are fiction. Now he says things like "Controversy is a good thing when it gets people thinking and talking," in which "and buying books" may be inferred. He insists: "Some people understand [my writing] and they're my fans. Some people don't and they're my critics."At first, Brown tried to soften outrage by sensibly pointing out that his books are fiction. Now he says things like "Controversy is a good thing when it gets people thinking and talking," in which "and buying books" may be inferred. He insists: "Some people understand [my writing] and they're my fans. Some people don't and they're my critics."
He has it half right: plenty of people understand his writing and know that his books are not an accurate record of the world. Many, however, start to think that because of all the name-dropping and "everything-is-connected" details, that Brown's books have more truth to them than they actually do. He's inspiring people to examine previously unnoticed details (good!) but also convincing some that secrets lurk in the pattern of their upholstery (not so good).He has it half right: plenty of people understand his writing and know that his books are not an accurate record of the world. Many, however, start to think that because of all the name-dropping and "everything-is-connected" details, that Brown's books have more truth to them than they actually do. He's inspiring people to examine previously unnoticed details (good!) but also convincing some that secrets lurk in the pattern of their upholstery (not so good).
Brown doesn't blend facts into his books like other novelists, though, who use solid science or history as a foundation to build creative, even impossible stories. It's the difference between using an anagram or a pun: an anagram is just letters rearranged, and a pun has multiple meanings. Both can be fun, but one has no substance. Brown rearranges appearances to create his world of wacky coincidences, but the consequent confusion over 'fact' and meaning understandably annoys some parties.Brown doesn't blend facts into his books like other novelists, though, who use solid science or history as a foundation to build creative, even impossible stories. It's the difference between using an anagram or a pun: an anagram is just letters rearranged, and a pun has multiple meanings. Both can be fun, but one has no substance. Brown rearranges appearances to create his world of wacky coincidences, but the consequent confusion over 'fact' and meaning understandably annoys some parties.
Brown can do better; he only has to stop turning every last real world item into an object of conspiracy, and let things have their own worth. Other genre-fiction writers have done exactly what Brown himself wants: to write entertaining novels that also "inspire intellectual curiosity".Brown can do better; he only has to stop turning every last real world item into an object of conspiracy, and let things have their own worth. Other genre-fiction writers have done exactly what Brown himself wants: to write entertaining novels that also "inspire intellectual curiosity".
Michael Crichton's books serve as a good example, despite their many flaws. With a dash of dino-DNA, Jurassic Park makes basic paleontology, genetics and mathematics accessible to the lay reader. Though the science starts taking fictional leaps, enough of the logic remains sound; and he doesn't resort to linking unrelated details to make his plot. Crichton also works in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and ties their themes of creation, control and chaos throughout. In one airport "technothriller" about a dinosaur amusement park, you've got two classic books and three intro science courses packed together.Michael Crichton's books serve as a good example, despite their many flaws. With a dash of dino-DNA, Jurassic Park makes basic paleontology, genetics and mathematics accessible to the lay reader. Though the science starts taking fictional leaps, enough of the logic remains sound; and he doesn't resort to linking unrelated details to make his plot. Crichton also works in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and ties their themes of creation, control and chaos throughout. In one airport "technothriller" about a dinosaur amusement park, you've got two classic books and three intro science courses packed together.
Brown can follow Crichton's lead (or Christie's, or even John Grisham's) and put some substance into his work. Conspiracies can be art, too, and fans of Brown might love Don DeLillo or Thomas Pynchon if he would just lay off those innocent Renaissance artists and point them in a different direction. Good genre fiction can show you that deep ideas, like what's found in good art, aren't nearly as far away as they sometimes look, and that they're always worth reaching for.Brown can follow Crichton's lead (or Christie's, or even John Grisham's) and put some substance into his work. Conspiracies can be art, too, and fans of Brown might love Don DeLillo or Thomas Pynchon if he would just lay off those innocent Renaissance artists and point them in a different direction. Good genre fiction can show you that deep ideas, like what's found in good art, aren't nearly as far away as they sometimes look, and that they're always worth reaching for.
And Brown has said, at least, that he wants to introduce Dante's Divine Comedy to readers, though I worry it's simply because Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that Dante wrote his autobiography "in colossal cipher".And Brown has said, at least, that he wants to introduce Dante's Divine Comedy to readers, though I worry it's simply because Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that Dante wrote his autobiography "in colossal cipher".
No one can stop Brown from invading the bestseller list every few years, but if he can put Dante and the other great writers on bedside tables, then the ends justify his syntactically awkward means. There's no conspiracy here. Dan Brown is just a guy out to make a buck off some bad books. If he could just clear up a few of those muddled allusions, though, he could accomplish something worthwhile: show his huge audience that literature is thrilling, too.No one can stop Brown from invading the bestseller list every few years, but if he can put Dante and the other great writers on bedside tables, then the ends justify his syntactically awkward means. There's no conspiracy here. Dan Brown is just a guy out to make a buck off some bad books. If he could just clear up a few of those muddled allusions, though, he could accomplish something worthwhile: show his huge audience that literature is thrilling, too.
Dan Brown could be the good guy. That's the twist.Dan Brown could be the good guy. That's the twist.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.