Dan Brown

[CostaRicaBill]

Haven't read the other posts about Dan Brown, but "Angels and Demons" is absolutely god awful. While it's sprinkled with some interesting facts, the plot is utterly ridiculous and retarded.

"I couldn't believe I was opening the Pope's tomb, I couldn't believe I was standing in the Pope's office, I couldn't believe I was in the Pope's bathroom."

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read the other posts about Dan Brown, but "Angels and Demons" is absolutely god awful. While it's sprinkled with some interesting facts, the plot is utterly ridiculous and retarded.

"I couldn't believe I was opening the Pope's tomb, I couldn't believe I was standing in the Pope's office, I couldn't believe I was in the Pope's bathroom."

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. This might explain why it wasn't very popular until DaVinci Code came out. I'm probably one of the very few people who enjoyed it as much as I did.

But to be honest. I don't think I'd be able to believe any of that stuff either. I guess we're all different.

[Blarg]

There's no such thing as an agnostic being an atheist without knowing it, but to the extent calling an agnostic an atheist could possibly make sense or even come close to making sense at all, it does fit the description of how more unabashedly religious people might see and describe being an agnostic.

You've got to be careful who you let define terms.

[Mansavage]

I read all four of his books during a one week stretch that contained virtually no sleep.

Angels & Demons is the best of his four books (Yes better that The Davinci Code) simply because it has the most engrossing plot. I enjoyed the conspiracy aspect of Davinci but still feel Angels was a better read.

Of the other two, Digital Fortress was the better book, but Deception Point had me turning pages non-stop also. Both are worthy reads, but fall very short of either Angels or Davinci.

The one thing that strikes me is the fact that all four plots are carbon copies of each other in a structural sense. I hope his fifth book is a bit different.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Angels & Demons is the best of his four books (Yes better that The Davinci Code) simply because it has the most engrossing plot. I enjoyed the conspiracy aspect of Davinci but still feel Angels was a better read.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the first time ever my sarcsam detector must be broken. It is telling me that you actualy are genuine in the above comment.

Come on, what you meant to say was that Darren Browns work is a blasphesmy against human litrature and could only be be enjoyed by retards with no taste and no exposure to real writing.

[CostaRicaBill]

I thought "Digital Fortress" was entertaining enough, but I almost threw "Angels and Demons" away before finishing it, I couldn't even believe that this was allowed to be released.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Angels & Demons is the best of his four books (Yes better that The Davinci Code) simply because it has the most engrossing plot. I enjoyed the conspiracy aspect of Davinci but still feel Angels was a better read.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the first time ever my sarcsam detector must be broken. It is telling me that you actualy are genuine in the above comment.

Come on, what you meant to say was that Darren Browns work is a blasphesmy against human litrature and could only be be enjoyed by retards with no taste and no exposure to real writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen King isn't much of a wordsmith either, but he tells some good stories.

Dan Brown weaves some facts with conjecture presented as facts. He gets so much right about the illegitimacy of Christianity, and then screws up when the Vatican was around. He gets locations wrong that he supposedly researched.

It all makes everything he says suspect, and since he precedes every book of his with a list of FACTs in the book, well, he comes across as nothing more than a hack.

~D