In 2003, Dan Brown wrote one of the most popular works of fiction ever written, The Da Vinci Code, which sold over 80 million copies over the next six years, and was translated into 44 languages. It is probably also the most Marmite-like book ever written. Many swear by it, arguing it to be an incredible book, others argue that it is incredibly poor.
Having read the book, I’d say that it’s pretty good. Dan Brown has an ingenious style, involving two intertwining plots, with alternate chapters. However, there are always holes at the end of each chapter, meaning you will read on to the next chapter of the plot, in turn acquiring more holes, and so on. This made reading any Dan Brown incredibly annoying, but also somewhat invigorating, and so credit to him!
But I’m not here to give you a review of The Da Vinci Code, I want to discuss the events and style that evolved from its publication which, quite frankly, destroyed the genre of academic fiction in its entirety.
This book triggered an instant interest in anything to do with cryptography, the Italian Renaissance, Jesus, or indeed anything else discussed by Brown. What this did lead to, though, was hundreds of academics, probably on disappointingly low salaries from some university somewhere, saying to themselves:
‘Wow, I could write that! Dan Brown is only an author, and I’m an expert! This is going to be easy! One-million-dollar contracts, here I come!’
It’s probably unnecessary to say that this was a miserable failure.
Via a shamefully blinded idea, these PhD students and professors thought that they could write better than people who not only earn their living as a result of it, but also dedicated their lives to this art.
On the contrary to this, I will say that these naive scholars, if they really put their mind to it, could write, and well for that matter. But they all make two grave errors:
1. They never have an original idea. They thought they could write a book similar to The Da Vinci Code, so they try to replicate it. Not only will the reader realise that this is their goal, but they will always be writing in the shadow of the book that sold 80 million copies.
2. As academics, they always put their study and subject before the actual story. The actual book becomes a platform on which they can display their infinite knowledge of something most people don’t care about anymore.
The second point, in my opinion, is a much more serious issue, given the fact that it makes reading their books a living nightmare. To display this perfectly, I am going to use the uniform example of a failure like this: The Tomb Of Alexander by Sean Hemingway.
Yes, Sean Hemingway is a direct descendant of Ernest Hemingway, and the latter ought to be turning in his grave if he were to find out, whilst frolicking in literary heaven, that his own grandson wrote a book so useless.
Anyway, Sean Hemingway is a curator at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, and he has a PhD in classical art and archaeology. Good for him and all, but you could literally figure that out by reading this fiction book. However, for the ultimate blasphemous act, I am going to directly quote from page 62:
…To my knowledge, I’ve never had any previous thoughts on Alexander the Great in my life. I want to learn more about him. Since you are an expert, can you recommend any reading materials for me?’
Tom thought for a moment and then replied, ‘Well, I’d suggest you start with the primary sources. Unfortunately, practically nothing survives from Alexander’s lifetime but there are later ancient biographers. I’d begin with Arrian and Plutarch. There’s a modern biography by Peter Green that is also quite good…’
This is the point where I threw the book against the wall and started crying for the time and money I’d wasted acquiring and reading this book. It’s awful enough for a fiction book to have someone inquire about ‘reading materials’, but for a detailed reply to worm its way into this catastrophe is just phenomenal.
This is a clear example of a writer simply trying to show off about something nobody cares about, and doing it on one of the purest stages in art and culture.
Another, more scientific example, is The Black Cloud by the award-winning physicist Sir Fred Hoyle. This book concerned a group of physicists dealing with the approach of a big cloud of gas threatening to wipe out life on Earth by blocking it from solar radiation.
Despite having an interest in science, albeit not so much in physics, this may have been the most boring book I’ve ever read, instead of the thrilling apocalyptic novel I’d been promised by the blurb. In fact, it is so bad that at one point two of the physicist drive into the middle of a desert and have a fifty page conversation on theoretical physics. I was sold…
Again, it is just some scientist believing he could do something that science fiction writers had perfected. Idiot…
Anyway, I’m losing the energy to continue this rant, but I will finish with some good news, being that it has not always been a failure, and on the rare occasion that a decent book is actually produced via this route, not only can it be interesting and informative, but also more fun than you’d expect, so:
-for the scientists, I’d recommend anything by Isaac Asimov (professor of biochemistry).
-for arts students, I’d recommend Raphael Cardetti (professor of Italian history) – Death In The Latin Quarter