Dan Brown

[bunnyrabbit]

Hi! :)

Just a little curiosity... Are any Dan Brown fans here?
I like the way he mixes the real history and locations, with fiction story.
What do you think?

[grapesmugg_3]

Yes I'm a Dan Brown fan, I brought home one of his books I wasnt sure I had read. I havent read "The Lost Symbol" or "Deception Point" (which is the one I brought home). The history, true info mixed with a great story is what I find really interesting.

[Dan]

Hi! :)

Just a little curiosity... Are any Dan Brown fans here?
I like the way he mixes the real history and locations, with fiction story.
What do you think?

I really, really hate that. He mixes facts with fictions with no indication which is which. The more central to the plot the "facts" are, the more likely they are to be bogus.

It's not too bad for the Da Vinci code where I'm not too familiar with the real history surrounding it and already very familiar with the crazy Jesus bloodline story but Digital Fotress which is about something I know (crypto) is hurling the book across the room bad from the author's sad excuse for what should be research.

I don't mind Dan Brown fan but please just be aware his books aren't based on facts, he just slips some in to make the whole thing seem more credible.

[bunnyrabbit]

It's not too bad for the Da Vinci code where I'm not too familiar with the real history surrounding it and already very familiar with the crazy Jesus bloodline story but Digital Fotress which is about something I know (crypto) is hurling the book across the room bad from the author's sad excuse for what should be research.

But don't forget it's still a novel. And there will always be things that won't fit. My primary focus is in IT Security so I am pretty familiar with cryptography too, but those deviations in the book (now it's quite a while that I've read Digital Fortress) amused me. That in fact attracted me to the book: if all the stuff are facts it would be like reading a white paper, and if it's all fantasy I can't correlate with it so it looses my attention.
 

I don't mind Dan Brown fan but please just be aware his books aren't based on facts, he just slips some in to make the whole thing seem more credible.

Never said that. :)

I like the way he mixes the real history and locations, with fiction story.

[MrDude]

I am a fan! I loved the Da Vinci code, and Angels and Demons...digital fortress was not so great..
In generally i like books about history + a spray of esoterism + mysterious deaths = great thriller! It is a magic recipe!

[Dan]

But don't forget it's still a novel. And there will always be things that won't fit. My primary focus is in IT Security so I am pretty familiar with cryptography too, but those deviations in the book (now it's quite a while that I've read Digital Fortress) amused me.

Digital Fortress is based on the idea that with enough money it's possible to build a massive computer that can brute force any encryption (known or yet unknown) in seconds or at most minutes.

[bunnyrabbit]

Digital Fortress is based on the idea that with enough money it's possible to build a massive computer that can brute force any encryption (known or yet unknown) in seconds or at most minutes.

And that is correct in theory. There is no algorithm that is brute-force proof. Just building and maintaining such cluster would be way way to expensive compared to results (info) gained by crypted data. And the thing keeping the build and operation of such a facility private it's almost unthinkable, but possible in theory. 

[Dan]

And that is correct in theory. There is no algorithm that is brute-force proof. Just building and maintaining such cluster would be way way to expensive compared to results (info) gained by crypted data. And the thing keeping the build and operation of such a facility private it's almost unthinkable, but possible in theory. 

No, it's not. The entire story is based on the bad guy brute forcing what he thinks is an *unknown* algorithm. You can't brute-force unknown cypher. Also, in theory and in practice you can't build such a cluster that would complete its task before the sun blows up.

Beside, in his explanation of how such a cluster is possible, Brown describes the difficulty of cracking various keys to be linearly related to their length which is against the most basic notions of cryptography.

Beside, the result of cracking the algorithm was even more ridiculous but that's a spoiler.

[Eric]

His work will never be described as "literature", much less good. And his butchering of the English language hurts to read at times.

But even judging his books for what they are:

Deception Point and Digital Fortress were just awful.

Angels & Demons and Da Vinci Code were interesting enough; the biggest criticisms are that he presents mere conjecture as historical fact. But as pulp thrillers that weave in an interesting historical narrative, they're okay.

The Lost Symbol was back to being downright awful.

[grapesmugg_3]

Thinking back to reading Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code what I enjoyed was the historical locations, and the map and imagining the characters navigating the historical sites of Rome and Paris. Although I didnt check to see if all that stuff was accurate. And my English is poor as you can see, so I didnt notice that he butchered the language.

[Eric]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6194031/The-Lost-Symbol-and-The-Da-Vinci-Code-author-Dan-Browns-20-worst-sentences.html

They're pulp novels so it's not like you expect them to be great literature, but Dan Brown is particularly bad.

But maybe I was a little harsh, so let me refine my opinion a bit. (Minor spoilers ahead)

Angels & Demons and Da Vinci Code were interesting as they focused on a secret history, and revealed things about Paris and Rome that most people probably didn't know about. At the very least, it was stuff that only a serious history buff would have heard of. And it's shrouded in enough mystery that the premise is at least plausible. He's offering up conjecture as fact, but the conjecture is as good a theory as any. The basic plot where the protagonists ran from one unlikely place/event to another by the sheer power of coincidence is another matter - but whatever, it's a pulp/action novel, I can forgive that.

The Lost Symbol was awful because compared to Paris and Rome, Washington DC just isn't that interesting, and there was nothing to "reveal". The Capitol building is based on Roman architecture! You mean that wasn't obvious to anyone with eyes? The white columns are kind of a dead giveaway. Further, the fact that the founding fathers were masons isn't all that secret. Nor are the masons themselves; they're not a secret society on the level of the Priory of Sion or the Illuminati. They're mostly just an old boys club with some wacky rituals. Most telling was the fact that the action wasn't driven by actual things found around DC (whereas the action in the previous two was driven by actual works of art and places around Paris/Rome) - it was entirely driven by an entirely made up pyramid which led to a "reveal" which was, frankly, stupid.

Digital Fortress and Deception Point didn't have even that much going for them. There were numerous plot points in both that just flat out made no sense, or were so unbelievable as to defy suspension of disbelief.

[Dan]

Unlike the Priory, the Masons actually existed. The Priory of Scion is a fiction invented by Pierre Plantard, a French guy who wanted to con people into thinking he was a descendant of Jesus. If you know the facts behind the novels, there's not much to them.

It seems to me that the more familiar you are with the topic of the novels, the less you like them.