It Isn't Easy Being Dan Brown

For one thing, there's the $50 million you're earned over the last two years to be counted, invested, tax-sheltered, and spent. Then there's Lewis Perdue nipping at your heels.

As if that wasn't enough, according to today's New York Times, Dan can no longer travel on airplanes, because the aisles get clogged with people lining up for autographs.  (And my favorite anecdote, he was in line at airport security and realized he left his ID at home -- so he borrowed a copy of DaVinci Code from the guy in line behind him and used the author photo to get on.  Of course, that does raise the question, what kind of moron goes to the airport, intending to leave town, and leaves their ID at home?) .  All of this is having a big impact on his work... a sequel to the DAVINCI CODE.

There are hints that the pressure to repeat his success might be wearing on Mr. Brown. Long an author who worked in private, Mr. Brown now talks with his editor, Jason Kaufman, often once a day, sometimes twice - far more often, Mr. Kaufman said, than when the pair worked together on Mr. Brown's three most recent novels, including "Deception Point" and "Angels & Demons."

"We go over every plot point and twist," Mr. Kaufman said. "I function as a sounding board for him."

Comments

[Mark A. York]

It's quite burden, but moron? That's a little harsh isn't it? I've been intrigued by Lew's case for sometime. Think he has a chance?

[David J. Montgomery]

I am highly skeptical that anyone is recognizing Dan Brown in public and mobbing him. That sounds like publicity maching BS to me.

[Bill Peschel]

If he's feeling the pressure, he's only got his agent to blame:

"Heide Lange, Mr. Brown's agent, said in an interview that she had renegotiated the contract to include at least two more books and compensation that is commensurate with the success of "The Da Vinci Code." Neither she nor Doubleday would comment on the details, but the price is undoubtedly in the millions of dollars."

I can't imagine, when you're rolling in so much money, why you'd want to do that. It's not like Doubleday's going to tank his next book.

[Mark A. York]

Well I can. The success warranted the renegotiation for a significant monetary upgrade. It also came with more work but isn't that what any writer wants? Paid work?Seems like a no brainer to me given the ground covered. I'm also confident the reading fans are doing the recognizing claimed. That's why they're fans. They're good at it.

[andy]

If nothing else, that such poor writing (and editing) can generate millions of dollars in sales gives me hope that someday I'll produce something (other than my blog, that is) that can make at least $1.75, even if $1 of it is my own money.

For some inexplicable reason (mass hysteria, I suppose), my wife's reading club has been reading The Da Vinci Code. She says she's enjoying the story itself but that the writing is crap and quite the long, hard slog to get through.

Oh well, better her than me.

[Holly Lisle]

Poor guy. My heart bleeds. :D

[Jim Winter]

I'm sorry, but if anyone tried to use the author photo from the back of a book they borrowed from a guy standing in line at airport security, he'd be sitting in a stuffy little room with two people dressed in black suits and sunglasses playing good agent/bad agent.

Sounds like manufactured PR BS to me.

[David J. Montgomery]

You're right on, Jim. The whole piece is bogus.

[Lee Goldberg]

The article, in fact, is a code. If you read it while looking at Michaelangelo's David, you will unlock a mystery that would topple everything we know and believe about the processed food industry.

[Mark A. York]

I haven't read it but Angels & Demons is quite good. I notice there are no comments on the actual work, so the sour grapes factor is registering quite high on the BS scale.

[David J. Montgomery]

No sour grapes here. I applaud Dan Brown for his success and am very happy for him. Like J.K. Rowling, he has done a wonderful job of getting people reading and excited about books, which ultimately helps every writer. He deserves every cent of those millions.

That doesn't mean that the PR fluff isn't bullshit, though. The guy's a writer, not a rock star. Like I said before, I'm highly skeptical that people are mobbing him. And the story about using his author photo for ID at an airport is laughable. (Does anyone really think that would work?)

I thought the book was average at best, but I'm pleased that people like it. I love it when people read and enjoy books. That's why I became a book reviewer.

[Jim Winter]

Haven't read DA VINCI. Probably will when it becomes passe. (Likewise, I'll probably start watching FRIENDS after the DVD sets go to the bargain bin. I'm just anti-trendy like that.)

But the PR bit is BS. Really. I can understand making up stuff to pimp your wares, esp. if you can really move some units, but please. Don't put all this effort into writing a really intricate story like TDVC, then insult my intelligence in an interview.

As for the book itself, I won't comment until I read it. (I have a gripe there, too, but it has more to do with getting around to reading the book. My TBR stack is HUGE!)

Now, about those guys who wrote LEFT BEHIND getting $42 million, I AM pretty pissed off about that. 'Cuz I read three of them. It's a miracle I'm not catatonic.

Then there's this Goldberg guy... Er, um, I mean this James Patterson guy...

[andy]

I notice there are no comments on the actual work, so the sour grapes factor is registering quite high on the BS scale.

Full disclosure: I'm not a published author. I'm a moderately successful business consultant. I like to write as a hobby and on a blog, and if that ever generates more than a couple hundred bucks, well, fantastic for me. It'll be a nice dinner out with the wife.

That said, I've flipped through various points in the book and found the writing to be rather clumsy. My wife and her friends all agree, but - like I said - they like the story.

I'm happy for Dan Brown, but - at the same time - even in my consulting work, I don't get much fulfillment from providing a half-assed solution to a problem.

I don't claim to be the world's best author (for good reason); I also don't claim to be the world's best college football player (again, for good reason), but that doesn't stop me yelling at the Crimson Tide when I think they've played poorly.

And, yes, I've been yelling at them a lot for the last 13 years.

P.S. Jim - don't worry about the Left Behind guys. On the off chance that the Bible is true and right and good, they'll probably get a one-way ticket to Hell for tinkering with the Big Guy's story idea. Or, if not for that, for being pleased that Kirk Cameron wanted to star in the movie version.

[Mark A. York]

I'm more concerned with stealing the details of the book than the PR myth. He sold the book bigtime a priori so the people spoke without any conjured up stories about him. Did he get the screentime in that movie? Check it out.

[David J. Montgomery]

Lewis Perdue is a friend of mine, so I'm concerned about the possible theft of his intellectual property as well. (I believe he's a friend of Lee's as well.)

I have no idea what the rest of your comment means, though. Translation, please?

[Mark A. York]

I'm not a friend of Lew's personally but I'm interested in his case and work. Which I've read. Since he's a journalist and trained in biology, well, I notice those sorts of things.

In the NY TImes article it said that Stephen Tyler wrote to Brown about the book and Brown wound up in the Aerosmith movie. Brown got a lot of screentime. More than some of the principals according to the report.

[Lewis Perdue]

I've been lurking the past couple of days, wondering whether to make a post on this. I won't comment on the quality of Brown's writing (not appropriate) nor the merits of my lawsuit (lawyers say not to ... besides, the facts are online for all to read and more to come in next two weeks) ...

So that leaves me little room to say anything here that won't get me in trouble one way or another.

HOWEVER ...

This blog's consensus that the Dan Brown airport thing is bogus fits in with a number of similar things, some of which will be contained in the next round of legal briefs, but one of which can be aired here:

How many of you who attended Left Coast Crime in El Paso heard a major, major mystery book store owner say that Dan Brown told her he was in virtual hiding because his life had been threatened by religious nuts? And heard this sale-same book store owner voice the opinion that this, too, was bogus?

Fact is that much of what Brown has said about his work and his life (and which can be confirmed on the Web and elsewhere) simply does not hold up to the hard light of reality.

If you all want some more examples, I can check with the lawyers to see if I can leak more.

[Mark A. York]

Interesting indeed. The church is sure mad at him.

[David J. Montgomery]

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that “the church is sure mad at him.” There have been reactions both pro and con to the book from the Catholic Church. Although a Cardinal recently condemned the book, another Cardinal (and leading candidate to succeed John Paul II as Pope) downplayed it saying “It isn't a big problem.”

As a religious or theological tome, it’s a curiosity at best. Where the book is most interesting is as a publishing phenomenon.

All that being said, the more I hear about Dan Brown, the most it seems that he’s...shall we say, a little eccentric.

[Lee Goldberg]

How is your case going, Lew?

[Mark A. York]

Look, anytime someone writes a book that unzips dogma even as fiction it can't set well with the promoters of a belief system. I could argue easily that it's all fiction but there's no need for that. Just beause a bureaucrat waves it off doesn't erase the level of distaste in the ranks. Which one was loudest?

It is a publishing phenomenon. Why? How in hell did he do it is the appropriate question?

[Lewis Perdue]

Lee, you ask how's the suit? Geez, I HATE suits ... and neckties too ... been months since I had to wear either ...

But seriously, the case is grinding its way through the courts, much like chunks of pork through a sausage grinder...pork, pork and more pork for the lawyers (glad mine are working on contingency)... and in the case of RH, producing volumes of legal prose that resemble the truth in the same way that andouille resembles pork loin.

Actually the Random House legal filings are some of the most creative fiction I've read in months...thin plot, but showing a lot of imagination that is only loosely coupled to reality.

Anyway, RH's torture of the facts along with some outright bungling in their filings have offered us even more material to work with than we had at the start so from that standpoint I am grateful.

I'm reminded of Mark Twain's adage that, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said." Random House can't quite remember what it's said from one filing to the next...and some of their statements about Da Vinci Code are actually contradicted by the book itself. And of course, from their descriptions, I don't even recognize my own books in many cases.

Currently, my attorneys are preparing our latest set of papers ... to be filed two weeks from tomorrow.

Then it'll be in the judge's court. No real timeline yet. I'm re-reading Kafka's "The Trial" right now and finding that my process has more than a few parallels. It is apparent that this is much about "THE LAW" and little about justice.

Being a native Mississippian, I am more than a little familiar with the many ways in which "The Law" can be used to deprive people of justice. It took the federal government to change that in Mississippi. I could use my own National Guard batallion, but I think they're all in Iraq.

It also doesn't help that copyright attorneys (mine and others I've corresponded with) say that copyright infringement law in the U.S. is so fuzzy that a case is decided about 30% on the merits and 70% according to "lawyering" and the luck (or lack) of the judge who gets the case.

Random House has filed the standard motion for Summary Judgement ... to dismiss for lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence, and the rules for the federal courts say judges should allow matters to trial if there is ANY question that a jury should hear. I'd be in good shape there, but some people have speculated that the judge -- who was criticized in a New York Times article for being the national champ for delayed decisions -- might be feeling pressure and want to take the easy way out --- dismiss it to help him dig out of his backlog.

If that happens, we'll appeal. We've already discussed that.

So ... how's it going? I'll bet you're sorry you asked now!

[Mark A. York]

I'm studying law and that sounds about right. Infringement is tough. I have one myself only the book hasn't been completed yet, only sold on proposal. The key: did they have opportunity to see my unpublished work. Yes they did, but have denied it anyway.

The evidence would be found in discovery, but that's for later if neccessary. Thumbs up on contingency.

[Lewis Perdue]

Hmmmmmm .... it MUST come as a GREAT surprise to Mr. Brown that the Catholic Church is mad at him. How could he _possibly_ have known?

After all, he told his local newspaper here:

http://www.yorkcountycoaststar.com/2003news/03162003/news/18067.htm

"Brown says about 10,000 people have read "The Da Vinci Code" before its release, including Catholic priests, religious scholars and art historians.

"There has not been one negative comment about the book. And I think that when people read the book they understand it’s presented in a historical light - it’s not taking sides. I worked hard to paint everyone - including Opus Dei - in a very fair and balanced light and the book is meticulously researched and very accurate and I think people know that."

Not ONE negative comment! Not one!

Remarkable!

[Mark A. York]

"About five years ago, as he was developing ideas for "Angels and Demons," Brown spent time in the Vatican library, researching the Dead Sea Scrolls with sources in the Vatican.

From that sprang his ideas for "The Da Vinci Code."

Did he?

[David J. Montgomery]

"Brown says about 10,000 people have read 'The Da Vinci Code' before its release, including Catholic priests, religious scholars and art historians."

Let's be honest here with what this actually means. The publisher sent out 10,000 or more galleys of the book before publication, with the vast majority of them going to reviewers, producers, publications and booksellers. Presumably, for good measure, they also sent a few copies to the priests, scholars and historians mentioned (emphasis on few).

Does that mean that 10,000 people read it before it was published? Absolutely not. Prior to DVC becoming a huge sensation, nobody knew who Dan Brown was. Many (most?) of the people who received the book probably didn’t even read it.

I should know. I got a galley of DVC before it was published, looked it over, didn’t feel any need to read it, and discarded it. Surely I was not the only one.

"There has not been one negative comment about the book."

Not one? Out of 10,000 readers? They universally adored and respected the book? Damn…

Say you were one of those mythical 10,000 people who read the book before it was published it and you hated it, took exception to what Brown had written. What would you do about it? How would you make your negative comments known to the author?

You could tell the publisher…but that doesn’t mean Brown would learn of it. (Publishers aren’t in the practice of passing along the nasty comments they receive about a book.)

You could write Brown a letter, c/o his publisher…and eventually he might actually receive it. But that would easily take 6 months to a year or more. Hardly in time to let him know in the month or two before the book hit the streets.

You could email him, if you knew his email address. But that’s not public knowledge. (And I was told he abandoned his old email address after the book came out and stopped talking even to former friends and colleagues.)

I suppose you could somehow track down Brown in person and tell him to his face – but now we’re talking fantasyland.

How can anyone believe what this man says?

[Mark A. York]

Well your agenda is clear, then that's peerfcetly allowable since reviewing and media criticism is opinion, but I'm attempting to be a bit more objective about the matter. What about his first two books? Complete duds? DOA? Oh contraire. These like Angels & Demons are very technically savvy works. Who did he copy these from?

And make no mistake about I'm very much on Lew's side, but by training I have to flesh out the whole argument regradless of personal feelings. You don't and it shows.

"(And I was told he abandoned his old email address after the book came out and stopped talking even to former friends and colleagues.)"

This is heresay at best and heresay by whom? He certainly has a webpage now so perhaps a test is in order? At any rate if you turned down a chance to review DVC after getting the chance I think this says more about your judgment than Brown's.

[Mark A. York]

Dan Brown Unfortunately this aloof status while explained here is true of most authors even midlist.

I could make the same claim for fellow RH author David Masiel (2182 khz) and it would mean about as much. I never had any trouble contacting David McCullough through S&S but I wasn't telling him negative feedback on his books either. It was about a separate issue and I got a response in writing from Martha'a Vineyard.

[David J. Montgomery]

I don't have a personal agenda. The whole phenomenon that is The Da Vinci Code is an interesting media topic, and I'm a commentator on media. So I comment on it.

I have nothing against Dan Brown -- as I've said before, I'm pleased with his success. It certainly hasn’t harmed me any. I think it’s a helluva boon for the publishing industry, something it can always use.

I wouldn’t say I have any “personal feeling” on the matter either. Opinions sure, but I’m not particularly emotional about it.

True, the guy seems loopy. But that’s all part of the fun! I must confess that I find the hype machine surrounding Brown and DVC to be humorous. (Is humor an emotion? I suppose it is.) The idea of author as rock star is rife with chuckles.

As for my turning down a chance to review DVC… you’ve got to understand, Mark, I have a chance to review every mystery and thriller that gets published. I receive submissions by the truckload; at least 1000 books a year. In 2004 I wrote newspaper review of perhaps 60 books. (In 2003, when DVC came out, it was even less.) Obviously the overwhelming majority of books go unread and unreviewed, by me or any other reviewer.

If anything, this represented prescient judgment, not that I gave it all that much thought at the time. What would have been the point of reviewing DVC anyway? With a product like that, reviews are basically irrelevant. Although it’s interesting as a cultural and media item, it’s not particularly intriguing as a book. Any space devoted to it would be squandered and better spent on some other title.

What I find most telling about the DVC experience is that it shows that many of the old publishing maxims (ads don’t sell books, books can’t be sold to the masses, etc.) are wrong. DVC proves that there is a huge potential market for fiction out there – and that the publishers are doing a poor job of tapping it.

[Mark A. York]

"it’s not particularly intriguing as a book." I don't see how this is possible to believe but that's an opinion for sure. It seems to me you knew the book would fare well so ignored it in favor of those in need of some exposure that would be unlikely to get from the publisher and media in general. Nothing wrong with that. They need all the help they can get by comparison.

[Lewis Perdue]

Mark: Yours is another good comment: "About five years ago, as he was developing ideas for "Angels and Demons," Brown spent time in the Vatican library, researching the Dead Sea Scrolls with sources in the Vatican.

From that sprang his ideas for "The Da Vinci Code."

Did he? "

Interestingly, the Vatican Library has very few documents pertaining to the Qumran documents (popularly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls ... something that DB should have known).

Go here and search for Qumran or "Dead Sea":

http://www.vaticanlibrary.vatlib.it/BAVT/home.asp?LANGUAGE=eng&DPT=gen

and you find a handful of books, most of which are works available in other libraries ... in other words, the Vatican Library doesn't have much on that subject and certainly not worth the trip ... but it has a cachet about it that sounds good in a news release.

In addition, given Brown's minor stature as a writer before DVC (publisher said all three of his previous books sold a total of 20,000 copies prior to DVC), how likely is it that he would have been able to pass muster to have access to the Vatican Library.

The requirements for that are at: http://bav.vatican.va/en/v_home_bav/v_informazioni/ammissione.shtml

"Admission Criteria

The Vatican Library is for specialized research in the fields of philology and history, and, retrospectively, in theology, law and science. It is designed for scientific research, with special emphasis on the study of manuscripts.

The Admissions Office is open from Monday through Friday from 9:00 to 12:00; and on Monday and Thursday from 15:00 to 16:00.

It is open to qualified researchers and scholars who can provide documentation of their qualifications and their need to access the materials conserved in the Library. By accepting the Reader’s Pass and signing the form in the Secretariat, the Reader undertakes to obey the Rules for Readers of the Library."

[David J. Montgomery]

"I don't see how this is possible to believe but that's an opinion for sure."

The phenomenon of DVC is interesting; the book not particularly so. It’s a fairly average potboiler, scores of which are published every year. Really, the novel itself is rather ho-hum. Not sure why that’s so hard to believe.

I wish I could have predicted the book’s great success – if for no other reason than I would have kept the ARC and 1st edition hardback – but, alas, I can take no credit for that. I skipped it because it didn’t look like my kind of thing.

[Mark A. York]

I would have thought your knowledge of Lew's work would have peaked your interest as I'm coming to the debate late.

Interesting evidence Lew. I'll peruse it and report back. Press release journalism is the worst kind: pure PR. They're only good as a template to rip open. Looks like you have with good reason.

[David J. Montgomery]

I've never read Lew's books. Sorry Lew!

Actually, he knows. :)

His new one, coming out this fall, sounds cool, though.

[Mark A. York]

I got ten sources the oldest being 1953 the years I was born. I read the rules but my Italian is bad. Nonexistent really. It does seem as though there'd be church history that would be pertinent insofar as the Illuminati and the like, but I've not researched these books as you have Lew. I read Angels and DOG simultaneously and yours was finished first.

I assumed wrong on your past reading David. Easy mistake and mine to bear. By the way I highly recommend you make up for lost time.

[David J. Montgomery]

More DVC in the news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=765&e=2&u=/nm/20050325/people_nm/pope_davinci_dc

I think Brown must have hired the Vatican to do publicity for him!

[Mark]

They gave out ARC's at the Left Coast Crime in Passadena before the book came out. I have one sitting in my garage. Unread. Wasn't interested in reading it before, and even less so the more I hear about it.

My complaint with the book is not the bad theology. It's the people are taking the bad theology as fact. My roommate read it. He read a passage from it. It sounded great until he stopped and I started thinking. It was so far wrong it wasn't even funny.

[Mark A. York]

Ah Mark, it's fiction and there is no bad or good theology. There's only the kind you like. Other than the infringement data, which is quite damning, you would have to say the same things of Lew's works. In fact if he stole it, you just did. And this is bad assessment of the story, writing, and subject. Neither are bad writing.

[David J. Montgomery]

Even within the confines of fiction, if you present something as true that isn't, that's certainly a subject for examination.

[Mark A. York]

OK fine. Has Lew done that? What's true about religion?

[Mark A. York]

"About half of this book [Da Vinci Legacy] is true. It's up to the reader to decide which half." Lewis Perdue

[David J. Montgomery]

I was referring to DVC, but perhaps I'm putting words in Dan Brown's mouth by stating that he presents much of his "research" as truth. The publishers have certainly been pushing that angle, though, in their marketing.

For those who believe, there's plenty true about spiritual matters. You've made your thoughts on that score obvious, though, so please don't take this as another opportunity to start belittling people of faith. You've beaten that horse to death.

[Mark A. York]

Quite untrue. Nobody is entitled to their own set of facts. If the books are this similar in detail how can one be false and the other, not? I think you're definitely putting words into Brown's mouth since you haven't read either his or Lew's work by your own admission. But you sure have a concrete opinion about the matter nonetheless. That's no research in my view.

[David J. Montgomery]

Ah, I haven't read DVC, but I'm familiar with it and listened to it on CD. I'm also quite familiar with the marketing of the book.

In Dan Brown's own words: "While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters."

So he is certainly portraying much of what he depicts in the novel as true. Therefore this is a legitimate area of inquiry on that basis, aside from the literary merits of the book.

[Mark A. York]

I'm intrigued with your interpretation of logic. Are you actually saying these elements aren't true or real? They open to inquiry, but it's been said here that he's falsely portrayed them. That's an accusation. Based on what facts?

[Tod Goldberg]

Not for nothing, but really, who gives a fuck?

(That's the truth, which means its my belief...the fact is likely also the same.)

[Mark A. York]

I don't buy it. Truth and facts aren't relative. And I don't give a fig if you don't care. I thought the discussion was about the books and the authors and the merits of the work. I guess to others it just a hit and run bash session.

My opinion logically defended.

[David J. Montgomery]

My point, as I said in my last post, is that the accuracy of DVC is a legitimate area of inquiry, given the author’s claims to the factual nature of the book. (This is in addition to any analysis of the literary merits of the novel.)

I'm not interested in debunking DVC. A quick search on Amazon, though, reveals at least a dozen books that take up the topic. If the matter piques your interest, I would refer you to one of those titles.

Given Lewis Perdue's analysis of Brown's "research" (which is based on Brown’s own statements), I think we can all guess how accurate DVC is.

What I find more intriguing than that is the man himself. Hopefully some intrepid investigative journalist is poking into the Dan Brown Literary Machine as we speak. Now that would be a story worth reading!

[David J. Montgomery]

Although I agree, Tod... I can't help myself! There is just something about the way he comments on his own posts, as if he were an omniscient observer, that sucks me in every time. I'm hoping he'll start referring to himself in the 3rd person if this goes on long enough.

[Mark A. York]

With all due respect you're the most arrogant flipant poster I've encountered to date and that includes some real doosy's.

I've not commented on my "own posts" as you put it. I'm commenting on yours which is more than enough material to work with.

If Brown's research only includes stealing Lew's, well, neither are accurate according to your logic. The contention is it's the same book. Whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene married can't be proven by anyone. It's moot. That a code in Leonardo's artwork leads to such a conclusion is the same. How is that bad research in a novel. He got the code wrong? It's really a different key and you know the right one? Give me a break.