Talk:Dan Brown

Question - given the goal of RW, vs say WP who tries to cover "everything", is there even a reason we have 3 articles here? Seems to me, making one article (probably on D. Brown, but whatever those who read him think) would be more effective than an author and 2 book pages? En attendant Godot 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * there's a ton of shit to debunk about Brown's novels, from his poor French to his liberal interpretations of history. I'd say he requires several articles to fully cover his BS.  Maybe subpages?--  17:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, had no idea. I'm not really a fan of his for the very reasons you mention.  I stand corrected, plenty of pages worth of debunking doth danny boy deserve.[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Serious hate going on here
I've never read any of his books (never plan to either) but I'm pretty sure the're marketed as fiction. Like, I've never heard him talk about the history being true.

Now, I know he understands absolutely nothing about science or geography or religion or just about anything else, however.... &mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.49.233.154 / talk / contribs
 * I think that's a fair point. Dan Brown's stuff (I've only read a few and watched a few movies with Tom Hanks) is sort of supposed to be fiction, but based on the real world (like, the Louvre actually exists, but I doubt everything inside the building is just like he describes it in the book). I've never actually met anyone who took his stuff seriously as relating to factuality and such. Nullahnung (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." - The Da Vinci Code. TVTropes has more on the subject. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the problem right there. If he called it fiction straight from the start this article wouldn't have been necessary. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We should probably put that bit of info (with source) in the article itself. Unless it's already in there and in my haste I overlooked it. Nullahnung (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguing the case
There is no information on whether Jesus was married or not and if so to whom - and 'x years after the event' the writers of the gospels might not have had the details to hand (without looking it up - how many children did Gerald Ford or John Major have?). "Jesus' message" was more important than his children.

Mary Magdalen lives in Judea, speaks the language and can probably find work to keep her going: she is obviously fertile and so worth marrying, and there will be any number of 'Mariams married to Joshuas who went off somewhere.'

Mary Magdalen goes to France, does not know the language, does not have residence rights... and ends up like any other illegal immigrant.

Even if she does survive and the line continue - where is the family tree to keep track of who the heir is (especially with wars, famines, and diseases killing off many people) etc etc.

The verdict is somewhere between 'insufficient evidence' and 'not proven.' 171.33.197.73 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a bit like arguing about whether Merlin really did help King Arthur.--Coffee (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Merlin and Arthur were both composite entities/the figures of the stories as we know them have many parents - and there may well have been various encounters between the actual contributors.

The point is - the initial theory (that Jesus was married and had children) is not impossible - but deriving a direct lineal link to the monarchs of France is not. (And John Locke's theories here apply equally here.)

How many children did the two politicians variously have? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding in a bit on Digital Fortress
Something that has always gotten my goat in particular with Dan Brown is his bit on Digital Fortress, specifically the language fuck-up (he assumes that Chinese 'the Mandarin language' (it's a dialect) and Japanese 'the Kanji language' are indistinguishable, see this blog or this blog which has pictures of the actual pages). This is easy enough to insert but while it's chronologically first in his textpoops I don't want to shove it right at the start of the article. Basically, I want to turn the Langdon series into a heading and add the Digital Fortress under an 'Other literary misdemeanours' section. Sound good to people? Tesseraction (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)