It has often been a fundamental axiom in the writing world that really shitty authors will recycle old plots and characters without so much as a grunt in the original author’s direction.

When I first heard about the Da Vinci Code, it sounded a lot like Foucalt’s Pendulum, which was written at least a decade earlier.

Recently, I stumbled across an old interview in which Eco quips that he was the origin of the plot for Dan Brown’s effort:

Interviewer: Talking about Foucault’s Pendulum, there is a sense in which you did the Da Vinci Code before Dan Brown did. Of course, you did it as a myth that takes on a strange reality and he did it as it was historical truth.

Eco: I told Dan Brown’s story. My characters are his. I gave the broad picture of this kind of literature.

Sadly, Dan Brown is a lot like Stephen King. King is a hack writer who happened to strike at the right time. Hopefully, Brown will at least get better over time, because I don’t see him stopping to write. Once a blockbuster movie has been made by an author’s stories, they typically start to write so they can sell the movie rights. (Look at Michael Chricton, for instance.)

I don’t know what everyone’s religious beliefs are, and I hope i’m not touching on a sensitive subject, but I think “The DaVinci Code” does have some worth, even beyond it’s literary merit (or lack thereof). I admit that there was a lot of twisted history in the story, but much of it was accurate, and accurate or not it got people thinking. I agree that “Foucault’s Pendulum” is clearly a superior book, but Eco’s writing style is too much for many people to take in.

What I mean is, in “The Name of the Rose” Eco used hundreds of pages of history and Latin phrases to weed out the uncommitted reader. He made an effort to complicate things, which personally I enjoy, but for the majority of people this is merely a hindrance. In other words, Eco’s books mainly appeal to those in elite literary circles, which are few and far between. Moreover, most of the people who read Eco already have some knowledge of the subject matter; so as much of a scholar as he may be he’s not going to have an impact on society like Dan Brown did.

As far as the plagiarism issue, i’m not sure how I feel. After all, throughout history philosophers have been plagiarizing each other over and over again. If you follow the progression of modern philosophy, you’ll find trends that evolve over the centuries. Maybe this is just the best way of relating an idea to as many people as possible. I mean the Romans basically plagiarized the Greeks’ entire culture/society, but look at all the creativity that came out of that. As the father of modern Science put it, “There is no such thing as an original thought.” I don’t know if I completely support Francis Bacon’s position, but who am I to argue with the man who coined the phrase “Knowledge is power.”

We all agree that “Foucault’s Pendulum” is a remarkable book, but it feels like something meant only for the literary intelligentsia. That’s fine, but I like that Dan Brown was able to reach so many people with his book. People are constantly discussing “The DaVinci Code”, but I can’t say that i’ve ever heard anyone engrossed in a conversation about Umberto Eco (outside of my philosophy classes). It’s a shame, but you can’t expect everyone to be innately intellectual.

In any case, Dan Brown got people thinking about religion and history in new ways. In my opinion that’s a good thing, for both the devout and the secular worlds. The fact is there is no definitive source when it comes to this type of material, so i’m not going to presume to criticize any author who chooses to write about such a challenging subject. Maybe it means i’m not as judgmental, but I have to support Dan Brown within this context. As far as Andrew’s thoughts on credulity, Brown himself stated that he wasn’t writing fact, but instead something that more closely resembles folklore. Eco wrote for those who enjoy the likes of Kierkegaard. Brown wrote for the people who are stimulated by simpler things, but each in their own way was able to make people think.

If you really want to get in to it, you should check out Eco’s “A Theory of Semiotics” and “Belief or Nonbelief”.

to achieve this goal, please let me know.

Actually, if people want to write shitty novels, it’s okay with me. I just wish publishers wouldn’t publish them. But of course, they do so believing that people will buy them.

And in this case, they were right.

But why, why, why, why? When so many extrordinary writers go unread, underrecognized, are underpaid….

But, as Truman Capote famously said, “Honey, don’t let me commence.“

Glitzcrapola packaged
neatly and served to
the almost lowest
demographic; kinda like
television with PBS, CSpan
and the NASA Channel excised.

OK, like a Spielberg film, too.
Excepting Shindler’s List.

Yeah, yeah… I’m a snob
poet. Eat my shorts.

))){

I rarely actually laugh out loud when I read something on the internet. I laughed when I read this goal. It is so true, his books are terrible. They are also all basically the same book. The only good thing is that he gives me hope of getting something published if I make an attempt, because if shit like that can get published then so can I, right?

that was throughly disgusted with THE DAVINCI CODE. While the ‘theory’ behind it was intriguing enough (I wasn’t aware of the Knights of the Templar, etc), I didn’t figure this could have been the first ‘book’ written on this subject.

Moreover, since the author declares this is a work of fiction, HAVE A REAL ENDING! GET SOME CLOSURE! I was so put out with the gauzy, maybe, did ya think it was ending provided for us.

Cripes, and they made a movie out of it.
What next?

we can try to put a halt to the production of his shitty novels by not purchasing them. for now, that is all we can do. but i hope i never see another movie even loosely based on one of his horrible books. it bothers me more that people think the da vinci code was nonfiction. sigh. stupidity is a growing epidemic that people like dan brown thrive upon.

I’m surprised. But, of course, everyone has their own opinions. Some say J. K. Rowling is a terrible writer. But I cheer her for her accomplishments. But this is a funny goal and I like it. So kudos.

he perverts history as much as he perverts literature. years ago i worked as a tour guide in rome & the vatican while doing graduate studies in religions and cultures and i cannot tell you how many people would argue with me about well documented facts because they were misled by dan brown. it drove me maaaaaaaaaaaad! the fiction disclaimer is no excuse for grossly neglecting any kind of research. i guess he mistook careless plagiarism for research. what a jerk.

finding this goal made my night. thanks!