Blogs and Stories
Debunking Dan Brown
Wendell Teodoro, WireImage / Getty Images
Brown’s new book, The Lost Symbol, faces its toughest critic yet: Michael Baigent, the historian who accused Brown of lifting his material in The Da Vinci Code (and lost in court). Baigent’s verdict: It’s bloody awful.
An editor of The Daily Beast with a sense of humor contacted me and asked if I would review Dan Brown’s latest book. I liked his idea and agreed, though I realized that it put me in a potentially difficult position, having gone head to head in court with Dan Brown over the claim that he misappropriated the intellectual property created by Holy Blood, Holy Grail; a case my colleague and I lost, expensively.
But that is the way of such things: Someone wins and someone loses. There is little point in carrying resentment afterward.
Nevertheless, writing a review of The Lost Symbol might easily be seen by some as a way for me to score points or exact some kind of cheap revenge, so I resolved to be scrupulous; to praise what was praiseworthy and to criticize what wasn’t.
I closed the book, took a deep breath, and looked at the ceiling in despair: The book was awful. It was so bad that it was a candidate for the worst book that I had ever tried to read. And I had another 501 pages to go.
I had briefly met Dan Brown during the court case and he seemed to me a perfectly friendly and polite man, rather shy and, so far as I could tell, unable to truly understand why we had brought the case at all. He was not the sort of person against whom you harbored anger.
With the end of the publisher’s embargo, I received the copy of his latest book, opened it, and settled down to devour a fast-paced thriller.
• Big Fat Story: The Lost Symbol’s Critics Decoded
By Page 8, my plan fell to pieces. I closed the book, took a deep breath, and looked at the ceiling in despair: The book was awful. It was so bad that it was a candidate for the worst book that I had ever tried to read. And I had another 501 pages to go.
Whatever else it did, The Da Vinci Code at least had a furious pace. It galloped along from one crisis to another, revealing mysterious and enigmatic secrets on the journey.
But The Lost Symbol dies repeatedly; it doesn’t ever have the chance to develop any pace because Brown dumps chunks of often irrelevant information directly into the text, stopping the narrative dead in the water.
It is a very peculiar style, and I am amazed that his editor didn’t rewrite those pieces for him.
The Lost Symbol. By Dan Brown. 528 Pages. Doubleday Books. $29.95.
An early example comes when the ubiquitous protagonist Robert Langdon arrives in Washington by private jet. In a particularly mundane exchange, he is told that he would look good in a tie. He hates ties. Suddenly the reader is treated to a history of ties involving Roman orators and Croat mercenaries. It is as if Brown wants us to think that he is a great scholar rather than a deft hand at computer searching.
The result is that all putative momentum is lost. The narrative grinds to a halt and then needs to be started up again.
Throughout the 509 pages of the book, such pieces are inserted almost at random without any serious attempt to put them in the service of the story’s momentum.
It is as if the book was written from reading a few basic texts and the rest from material culled from the Internet, which has been simply dropped into the manuscript without much attempt to integrate it properly into the service of the narrative.
The so-called scholarly credentials of Langdon and his companion, one Katherine Solomon, are also rather suspect. Much is made of Noetic Science and the important experiments with the Random Number Generators. The peer-reviewed scientific journal where much of this research is published, The Journal of Scientific Exploration, never receives a mention; it would seem obligatory for anyone pretending to expertise in this area.
He mentions a scholar’s library of 500 books: No scholar I have ever met operates with less than several thousand, with a further few thousand as backup. Brown has no idea of scholars.
Even Langdon, with whom Brown obviously identifies, has his authority destroyed near the end of the book when he is recorded as admitting that he had never understood why, early in the Old Testament, the word for God was Elohim, a plural term. This question is normally resolved in a first-year university course.
Brown’s style reveals an endemic laziness: “He gave Langdon the jet’s tail number and various other information.” If this information is relevant to the story, then let’s have it; if not, remove it. In a thriller, it is better that the prose serves the story’s pace.
In an attempt to introduce excitement we have, “A loud metallic crash echoed... Then, quite unexpectedly, the crash echoed again. And again. And again.”
Yes. We get the idea. But really, the original crash should not have been an echo. Or am I being overpedantic?
Dan Brown is not seeking to write great literature but he is seeking to gain respect for his ability to write competent and thrilling stories. And due to his very high profile created by a formidable marketing operation, he has, by default, been hailed as a kind of standard to which writers might aspire, which is very sad.
A good story needs to keep its eye on the ball, on the words chosen, on the ideas, and on the development of the story; all need to feed into pace and revelation.
Writers like James Lee Burke, John Grisham, and Lee Child, for example, have gained a deserved success through their richly drawn characters, tightly controlled, fast-paced plots and, importantly, the introduction of some lyricism and color to bring their characters to life.
Brown sees no need for any of this: His characters are flat and colorless. It is very hard to care about any of them. They are but shadows tumbling through an increasingly predictable plot.
But there is something to praise: His attitude toward Freemasonry. It is fair and, up to a point, accurate. Importantly, he makes clear the political and spiritual inclusiveness of Freemasonry, which is one of its greatest strengths.
There is some artistic license taken: During his Masonic ceremony, the villain drinks out of a cup fashioned from a human skull. This is something more likely to be found in a Tibetan temple rather than a Masonic temple.
Brown also conflates two quite distinct forms of Freemasonry, that of the three degrees—“Craft” or “Blue” Freemasonry, which is by far the largest—and that of the “Scottish Rite,” which has 33 degrees. All Scottish Rite Masons will normally also be Craft Masons, but the 33rd-degree Mason is not at the pinnacle of all Freemasonry, he has simply gained the highest stage of the Scottish Rite. It is a very common mistake repeated by Brown.
Freemasonry is initiatory, it is based upon experience. The experience of the Third Degree, involving death as it does, contains all the secrets for those who can perceive them.
In the end, having struggled through the story to its final, pathetically anticlimactic ending, I was left with only one possible conclusion: The emperor has no clothes. Someone has to tell him; his publishers certainly won’t.
Dan, do us all a favor: Stop! Drag yourself away from your computer and go out and have some adventures: Drive a Land Rover covered in fuel canisters and sand tracks across the Sahara, trek to the Tibetan sacred mountain, live in Kashgar or Irkutsk for a year studying central Asian shamanism, island-hop in Greece until you have fully experienced both the past and the present.
Or, closer to home, experience for yourself Native American shamanism in some place of remote and wild beauty where the stars make their nests in the mountaintops.
Indeed, you might be interested that many Native Americans, especially in the 19th century, joined Freemasonry; did they see the parallels with their own shamanic traditions?
And, who knows, in time you might discover that you have something genuine to write about.
Plus: Check out Book Beast, for more news on hot titles and authors and excerpts from the latest books.
Michael Baigent’s new book is Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World. He is also the author, with Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, of Holy Blood, Holy Grail: The Secret History of Jesus, the Shocking Legacy of the Grail.
For press inquiries, contact this writer at press@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
mcmchugh99
I haven't read the book so I can't say much about it, although that never stopped me from having opinions.
As a historian, I have seen colleagues shred each other in reviews because they hated each other's guts personally, politically, or for whatever reason. It is a grave weakness of the peer review process, and one difficult to correct except by people writing even more reviews.
It's no big secret to historians that Masons were often on the liberal or radical side during the Age of Democratic Revolutions in the 18th and 19th Centuries--think Benjamin Franklin, just for starters. They were well known to be sympathetic to science, reason, Enlightenment, hostile to feudalism, absolute monarchs, clerical establishments and so forth. If they were conspiratorial, it's often because the secret police, Inquisition and clerical authorities were often hot on their trail trying to suppress such revolutionary activity.
In the West at least, the Masons were on the winning side in the end, although there have quite a few ups and downs over the last 200 years. It's their ancient enemies like the Catholic Church that seem much the worse for wear at this point, in the developed world, anyway.
PS I believe in God myself, but not in any organized religion, so I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was married and had children, even if his wife was often edited out of the story. Given the status of women and children at the time, she was fortunate to even get an honorable mention. In any case, it seems perfectly possible that Jesus was in an arranged marriage from a young age, as the majority of people were before modern times.
whipmawhopma
mcmchugh99 - You're a historian?
Mystic1
I haven't seen a cogent point anywhere in what you have written. Can you clarify what your point is or what your points are? Thanks.
robwriter
Dan Brown's works are pure fiction in the most literal sense.. There is virtually nothing factual about any of them. Indeed, they are counter-factual, to say nothing of historically illiterate. The famous scene in the Da Vinci Code in which it is explained that the beloved disciple is Mary Magdalene is unintentionally funny. Northern Italy, particularly Florence, was known for its homosexuality. The beloved disciple is an effeminate man, not a woman. Anyone who had read anything about the culture of Florence in Leonardo's era would have figured this out. Mary Magdalene was appropriated by certain gnostic sects in the 2nd century; whether any of their claims about her are historically accurate is anyone's guess. Brown's novels, which are mental chewing gum, have done little more than reveal how insecure Christians are about their early history. They have every reason to be.
bobvious
I've read Baigent's work (with Lincoln and Leigh), "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," so I can say without doubt that Brown is not his "peer," as much as he might wish to be.
pkimelman
I do not see any place that Brown suggests they even do the same thing? Dan Brown is writing action stories and mixing in a historical viewpoint into the story. The intent is to make it palatable to a much larger (and often less educated audience). He is trying to inform people of perspectives they do not know about (in this case, the Masons in US history).
The review by Mr. Baigent fairly focuses on what Dan Brown is trying to do in the new book rather than treating it as a more scholarly work, which is fair.
I agree with Mr. Baigent that the book is very oddly constructed with these long narrative "soliloquies" inserted in at various places (I use that term loosely, but the point is that they are uninterrupted "speeches" on some subject that may or may not relate to the story).
However, the book is not intended to be quite the action packed book of DaVinci. Although it takes place over just a day, it uses a different style, where it has many flashbacks and often drawn out scenes. The ending is perhaps unusual in that the "ending" comes well before the last page, but again he is looking for a new style than just the usual.
The goal of this book is clearly to be more philosophical. Although the DaVinci code was focused on the Gnostics and their writings and the beliefs that come from them, this one is more than just about a view, it is also about embracing the more inclusive views of Masons and the founders of this country. Given how wild-eyed many evangelicals and others who take the Bible literally, this is not a bad thing at all.
whipmawhopma
pkimelman - "Given how wild-eyed many evangelicals and others who take the Bible literally, this is not a bad thing at all."
Ha ha, like this book is going to suddenly make them sit up and wonder about whether or not the Bible really is literally true. All this is going to do is reinforce their belief that the Bible is indeed literally true, and the mental wagons will be circled to keep out any thought that things might be otherwise.
I suppose it sounds counterintuitive, but because this is viewed by as an attack on the Bible by those having a worldview defined by the Bible in terms of good versus evil, with the good and their Bibles expecting to be attacked, then because the Bible is attacked then it must be literally true.
I am sure one us could express this better than I did.
pkimelman
I am not expecting the "converted" to change, few do. But, these kinds of books can stop others going off that cliff. If it just sows doubt, that is usually enough to get the smarter ones thinking a little more clearly. Many of the evangelical churches act like cults; like all cults, the draw is the certainty and absolutism - kind of like vegetating in front of the TV, but turned into a lifestyle. It is the nature of fundamentalism (whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever), but what kills fundamentalism is questioning that certainty. That cannot be a bad thing for this country, which too often is polarized by such certainty. This book will be beach reading for many who are curious, so a few will open their eyes.
Piscesprincess
How insightful. thank you so much for your take on this book. far better than the gentleman who wrote the piece. and I also read Holy Blood Holy Grail. Now that is a book that is really HaRD to get Through. Read it twice. in 1983 and again two years ago. sheesh. what a drag. like a text book.
bobvious
pkimelmwn - just a note, I was referring to the comment above, by mcmchugh99 -- "As a historian, I have seen colleagues shred each other in reviews because they hated each other's guts personally, politically, or for whatever reason. It is a grave weakness of the peer review process, and one difficult to correct except by people writing even more reviews."
bobvious
Note to editor: Mr Baigent's newest book is mis-linked to a different book on Amazon.
katiewon
Rule of thumb: If the masses are crazy in love with something, it probably isn't that good - one reason I didn't read the Da Vinci Code, too much hype and frankly - so what about religion. I did see the movie - yawn.
That being said, I think Mr. Baigent's review is fair and balanced - he has specific grievences and cites historical inaccuracies. I would like to read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" from everything I've heard about it, and his new one sounds interesting too.
BTW - what happend with "Angels and Demons?" It seems to have died on the vine.
nickmagoo
are you speaking of the book or movie? the book came out before da vinci code, and the movie, while not massive in the US (130 million, still nothing to sneeze at), brought in over 480 million dollars worldwide.
BasPos
Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses. Viz, the gNOps.
khepri
Dan Brown's novels are puerile and goofy. I wish there was more to say.
Piscesprincess
and you've read them? I presume? hmmm??? I submit there IS more to say. Sir.
Busylizzie
Referring to Leonardo as 'da Vinci' is kind of like saying 'Saint of Assisi' without the Francis'or 'the Great' without the Alexander' - even the TITLE of the 'Code' failed to pass muster. I'm not surprised to hear that Mr Brown continues to underachieve in the research department.
DBFan2009
thank you for the review.
one thing i have learned over the years is that the majority of "best selling" books are not very well written.
why are they "best sellers"?
it's the old coffee table syndrome - books are bought and not necessarily read, but wow, they sure look good on the coffee table.
pclayton
Yes, the coffee table syndrome contributed to their becoming best sellers and the fact that anything that appeals to the masses must stoop to the lowest common denominator (eg, TV) and thus will show great sales; has nothing to do with great writing or talent.
nortonclybourn
Debunking Dan Brown? What next, an expose proving that Pro Wrestling is fixed?
Martyz42
Speaking of trash this author can certainly speak to it based on his own writings. I am in the process of reading the book as we speak & yes it has some line skipping that is needed but we forget that anytime any author write a conceptual sequel of sorts there will be less meat to the story.
I read several books a month & do so to get me away from the day to day comedy & tragedy of what the criminals that have been elected, bought & paid for in Washington DC are doing & how they are lying to all Americans, especially in the Southern States & to religious people in general. Reading fiction that is fiction makes it easier to swallow the fiction out of DC.
Having said that, Dan's past three books kept me away form the jokes & lies coming out of DC so as far as I am concerned they were good books... As for this one, it is also helping me kill time during a remodel of my wife's new medical office so again he has succeeded... Lastly folks unless I am missing something, he is also making a TON of buckies & unless I am missing something that is in our nation of money mad greedy people the pinnacle of success, all Dan's books make him giant buckies meaning in the US, he is a great writer....
robwriter
In defense of Dan Brown, may I point out that he is fiction writer? About ten pages into the Da Vinci Code it was fairly obvious to me that Brown knew little to nothing about 1st century Palestine, linguistics, or much of anything else. Of course, I had some advantage over most readers, having studied Hebrew and Greek at the university level and done some fairly serious reading in the field of New Testament studies. The solution is to chuckle and keep reading. This stuff is called "fiction" because it's fictional and fiction by definition isn't true. Now the really funny part: masses of Christians, including Vatican officials, became incensed by the portrayal of Jesus in this book. They railed against it, castigated it, and by doing so publicized it. People like me, who assumed it was schlock, picked up a copy and read it to see what all the furor was about. Sure enough, it was schlock. Brown's work does reveal two very real things, however: the first is the widespread ignorance of real history and historical methodology, the second is the insecurity of Christians when it comes to their founding myths and documents. Watching church bigwigs getting their zippers all stuck over a work that is so obviously fictional was worth the price of a copy. I suspect this trend of over-reaction will continue. In the meantime, Brown has made a mint off his efforts and for that I applaud him. It's gratifying to see someone make money off a book that's not the Bible.
pclayton
@ robwriter
"Brown's work does reveal two very real things, however: the first is the widespread ignorance of real history and historical methodology, the second is the insecurity of Christians when it comes to their founding myths and documents."
Great statement and I totally agree with you. Most Christians I know were furious about Brown's first 2 works of fiction, the nerve, depicting Jesus as a man who had sex. Those who are not Christians loved them because they infuriated blind-faith believers. So, yes, I read them too as mere potato chips for the brain and got a big kick out of the practically comic book nature of his interpretations of da Vinci's work. I am amazed at the number of intelligent people who will argue the truts vs untruths of Brown or the bible for that matter. As for the latter, it is a great work of fiction with the longest run in history.
Guitarsharkxx7
Completely agree with nortonclybourn! Ultimately his books are works of FICTION, yet we have critics who take pride in revealing the historical inaccuracies as signs of bad writing. If anything, he has created a desire to research the groups and theories presented in his stories such as the free masons, of which I personally knew very little.
Is he the best writer? No....But he has given a refreshingly different spin on secret organizations, conspiracy theories and ancient symbols that everyone sees everyday, but has never thought about their origin. Isn't it a sign of a great imagination when entire TV shows formulate over debunking the myths presented in his books?
lbi555
Hi, correct link to Michael Baigent's new book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Toward-Armageddon-Three-Religions/dp/006136318 9/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252440318&sr=8-1
NewOrlinNC
My grandfather always said, "No one ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the American public." He was not a businessman but instead a lawyer. Among his clients included Andrew Higgins, the designer of the D-Day boats; my grandfather had to fight tooth and nail to get Higgins a contract from the Navy who believed it could design a better landing craft than a bayou boat builder.
Anyway, the Da Vinci code had no value as a work of literature or as a mystery. It possessed neither elegant prose nor any of the cogent clue placement, etc. of a well-crafted whodunit. It was laughable on both scores.
At best the Da Vinci code was an interesting treasure hunt/suspence thriller. But what made it interesting was its religious conspiracy theory, which, it turned out, was lifted directly from Mr. Baigent's painstakingly researched book. After learning about Mr. Baigent's claim, I followed the court case. I was very sorry to see that he lost. It nauseates me that Brown has effectively plagiarized Mr. Baigent's work and made off like a bandit to the tune of $300 million. I have vowed never to give Mr. Brown another cent in royalties and will NOT be buying the Lost Symbol.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.