Dan Brown’s books are thinly veiled nonfiction conspiracy theorizing, aren’t they? He really believes all this stuff. Maybe that’s what causes this effect?
Well, they are suspense novels so yes, there are bad guys in the plot; and yes they are conspiring to certain ends. But I am aware of no evidence that Brown really believes this stuff any more than Neal Stephenson, for example, believes his stories.
Here’s what surprised me about these books. Read them. Pay careful attention to what is actually described; i.e. not what the characters infer from the events of the book but what the characters actually see. You can reason from there in two ways:
1) Base your conclusions on traditional suspense novel tropes.
2) Base your conclusions on what you would likely think if you saw these admittedly implausible events in real life.
One approach will leave you confused. One will not.
I was speculating on the cause of this effect, not disputing it.
As for whether he believes in these conspiracies … well, I know for a fact that they’re based on real conspiracy theories with actual proponents, although I’m not sure where I heard that he believes them himself. I suppose he might be simply using them as inspiration; I’ll try and track down my source on that.
ETA: a moment’s quick googling reveals that
Much criticism also centers on Brown’s claim found in the preface to The Da Vinci Code that the novel is based on fact in relation to Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion, and that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in [the] novel are accurate.” [Wikipedia]
Dan Brown’s books are thinly veiled nonfiction conspiracy theorizing, aren’t they? He really believes all this stuff. Maybe that’s what causes this effect?
Well, they are suspense novels so yes, there are bad guys in the plot; and yes they are conspiring to certain ends. But I am aware of no evidence that Brown really believes this stuff any more than Neal Stephenson, for example, believes his stories.
Here’s what surprised me about these books. Read them. Pay careful attention to what is actually described; i.e. not what the characters infer from the events of the book but what the characters actually see. You can reason from there in two ways:
1) Base your conclusions on traditional suspense novel tropes.
2) Base your conclusions on what you would likely think if you saw these admittedly implausible events in real life.
One approach will leave you confused. One will not.
I was speculating on the cause of this effect, not disputing it.
As for whether he believes in these conspiracies … well, I know for a fact that they’re based on real conspiracy theories with actual proponents, although I’m not sure where I heard that he believes them himself. I suppose he might be simply using them as inspiration; I’ll try and track down my source on that.
ETA: a moment’s quick googling reveals that
This may be what I was thinking of.