I’m not much of a Brown fan. In fact, with the exception of the Da Vinci Code, he fails across the board (starting with the utter rubbish in Angels and Demons). Indeed, I am lenient as I don’t ask much except two things: wit and consistency within its own universe. Of the few Dan Brown books I read, only the Da Vinci Code passes both conditions and in the end it proves to be an entertaining piece of fiction.
This is why it’s very hard for me to understand the wall of repression and accusations raised against the book (and subsequent movie). Why such a vehement attitude against what clearly is a work of fiction? After all, the world is full of works that pick a few historical details and make the most preposterous statements. We don’t go all out on Saving Private Ryan or The Three Musketeers or similar works for going out of history books and into fiction. Sure, we underline what’s fact and what’s imagination when we discuss them with friends. But I don’t see, for example, the Sorbonne putting up a big plaque at Richelieu’s tomb explaining that he wasn’t the bad guy Alexandre Dumas painted him to be. continue reading…
John Le Carre is no Ian Fleming just as George Smiley is no James Bond. Surely, both authors worked in British Intelligence during the Cold War. They both handled intelligence operations, handled agents and top secret information, set up informants and so on before they both turned to writing.
