Dan Brown is a fraud: A list of errors in Angels and Demons
Dan Brown, author of the immensely popular The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, makes a big deal of the accuracy of his books and the time he spends researching them. On his webpage, Brown explains that "Because my novels are so research-intensive, they take a couple of years to write." The first page of both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons has the heading "FACT". The following page in Angels and Demons claims that "References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today. The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual."
Since Brown highlights his concern with getting the facts right, he opens himself up to criticism of the "facts" that he presents throughout his novels. And it turns out that Dan Brown, much of the time, is full of shit. What follows is a list of errors found in Angels and Demons. It is not meant to be exhaustive or complete. There are plenty of inaccuracies that I'm sure I've missed. Nor does it catalog the innumerable instances of infelicitous prose and implausible scenarios. Dan Brown is an awful writer - his language is pedestrian at best, his characters flat, his plots formulaic. But that's not my concern. The problem with Dan Brown's books is that people buy into his claims that they're factually accurate. Call me a pedant, but facts matter, especially when you claim that you get the facts right.
My goal here is convince people that you shouldn't believe any of Dan Brown's factual assertions. He gets some stuff right, but he's wrong just as often as he's right. Go ahead and read his novels for fun. But don't trust a single word he's saying without doing further reading. Brown's either incompetent or careless. In either case, he insults his readers by getting so much wrong. It's amateurish, and he should be castigated for it.
I've restricted this list just to instances where Brown is flat-out wrong. There are plenty of misleading and dubious passages in Angels and Demons that I've left out due to the difficulty in verifying all of his errors. So this list is representative of the kinds of factual mistakes that Dan Brown makes. As you'll see, Brown has some knowledge on the topics he writes about; it's just that his knowledge is superficial and incomplete.
If you know of further errors in Angels and Demons or if you spot any mistakes in this list, please feel free to pass them on. And the next time you hear someone talk about how smart Dan Brown is, send them this way.
The List
- On the map of "Modern Rome," there are at least five errors.
1) The Ponte Sant' Angelo is translated as "Bridge of Angels." This is a rather bad translation... the bridge bit is right, but "Sant' Angelo" means holy or blessed angel. Brown's pluralized it and dropped the holy bit.
2) It's not the Via Condotti, it's the Via dei Condotti. And its considerably further south than Brown put it.
3) It's not the Via Nationale, it's the Via Nazionale.
4) The Pantheon is south of Piazza della Rotunda, not north of the piazza, as Brown puts it.
5) Sant' Agnese in Agone is west of Piazza Navona, not east of it, where Brown puts it.
- After sending a fax, you don't stay on the line (7).
- Langdon calls "ancient documents" and "historical hearsay" the "symbolic equivalent of fossils" (8). This is nonsensical. I'm not sure how documents and hearsay symbolic equivalents of anything? More substantially, documents and hearsay differ when it comes to what they reveal about the past. Documents, particularly those roughly contemporary to the events they describe (primary sources), are generally considered relatively reliable sources of information. Hearsay, especially when far removed from the event in question, is far less useful, though it can reveal plenty about who's propagating the hearsay. To conflate documents
and hearsay into a category that is equivalent to fossils reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about how history is written.
- The pilot of the X-33 claims that at sixty thousand feet, people weigh thirty percent less (15). This is pure nonsense. Rising 60,000 feet from the earth will decrease one's weight by less than 0.6%. For information on the effects of altitude on weight, see this page.
- While walking around the CERN campus, Langdon notices a marble column incorrectly labeled Ionic. Langdon points the mistake out to Kohler: "That column isn't Ionic. Ionic columns are uniform in width. That ones tapered. It's a Doric - the Greek counterpart." (26) The problem is that Ionic columns are themselves Greek. The three orders of classical columns, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, are all Greek in origin, so it's impossible for the Doric order to the be the Greek counterpart of the Ionic. It's also much easier to distinguish the Doric from the Ionic based on their capitals; Doric columns have plain capitals, while Ionic columns are topped by volutes or scrolls. You can see the differences here.
- In one of his lecture-y moments, Langdon mentions the Polish astronomer Copernicus. Kohler interrupts, saying that the church murdered Copernicus and other scientists "for revealing scientific truths." (31) Copernicus died from complications from a stroke in 1543, soon after the publication of his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. There is no evidence that Copernicus was murdered by the church.
- In discussing the Illuminati, Langdon reveals that the Catholic Church denounced the group as Shaitan. Questioned by Kohler, Langdon provides further information. "It's Islamic. It means adversary - Gods adversary. The church chose Islam for the name because it was a language they considered dirty." (34) Complete bullshit. Neither "Islamic" nor "Islam" is a language. The latter is a religion, the former the adjective form of that religion. Perhaps Langdon (and Brown) was thinking of Arabic?
UPDATE (27 January 2005): Niek Kouwenberg e-mailed me and argued that "Shaitan" is of Islamic origin (it's from the Koran), so Langdon and Brown are correct here. That argument relies on a reading of the passage that I don't agree with but I think I can see. I may have been too harsh here. In any case, Brown doesn't make things very clear.
- After learning that Vittoria Vetra practices hatha yoga, Langdon muses that "The ancient Buddhist art of meditative stretching seemed an odd proficiency for the physicist daughter of a Catholic priest." (50) All forms of yoga are Hindu in origin, not Buddhist.
- While talking with Kohler and Vetra about the Big Bang theory, Langdon insists that the theory was first proposed by "Harvard astronomer Edwin Hubble" (69). At no point in his life was Hubble associated with Harvard.
- In defiance of Kohler, Vittoria tries calling the authorities to help investigate her father's death. She's unable to, since "This far underground, her cell phone had no dial tone." (95) I have no trouble believing that Vittoria had no dial tone, but it's not because shes underground. Cell phones never have dial tones.
- While pondering the removal of the Vatican Museums works of art, Langdon also thinks of the architectural treasures housed within the museum: "the Sistine Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica, Michelangelo's famed staircase leading to the Musèo Vaticano" (107). There are four (yes, four!) errors in just this sentence. First, its the Musei Vaticani (Vatican Museums), not the Museo Vaticano. Second, there's no accent over the e in "museo" in Italian. Italian has penultimate stress, so there's no need for the accent. Third, St. Peter's is not housed within the Vatican Museums. Finally (and most wrong), the spiral staircase was designed by Giuseppe Momo in 1932, over 350 years after Michelangelo's death.
- Upon seeing the pilot of the helicopter in his "garish attire," Langdon explains that the uniforms were "Designed by Michelangelo himself." He then recalls the requirements for entering the Swiss Guard: "applicants had to be Swiss males between nineteen and thirty years old, at least 5 feet 6 inches, trained by the Swiss Army, and unmarried." (115) As usual, despite Langdon's supposedly expert knowledge, he succeeds in getting it wrong. Its a popular misconception that Michelangelo designed the uniforms of the Swiss Guard; in fact, the current uniforms were designed by Jules Repond in the early 20th century. Langdon (and Brown) also gets the requirements wrong. Applicants must be at least 174 cm (68.5 inches, or a bit over 5'8").
- As Langdon and Vittoria fly over Rome, they see the Roman Forum. Browns description of the forum includes this gem: "The decaying columns looked like toppled gravestones" (119) Toppled gravestones have fallen down; they're horizontal. Just about all the visible columns in the Roman Forum are still upright, as this photo shows.
- A bit later, Brown describes the Tiber. "Even from the air, Langdon could tell the water was deep." (119) I suppose there's some question as to what deep means, but its hard to believe the Tiber would ever qualify as deep. As the Tiber runs from Rome to the Mediterranean Sea, its depth ranges from 7 to 20 feet, so its highly unlikely that its any deeper while in Rome. For more information on the Tiber, see this page.
- As they approach St. Peter's, the reader is treated to a description of the basilica. "The marble façade blazed like fire in the afternoon sun. Adorned with 140 statues of saints, martyrs, and angels, the Herculean edifice stretched two football fields wide and a staggering six long." (119) Take a look at the façade of St. Peters. Do you see 140 statues there? Then theres the matter of the size of St. Peters. As most Americans (but apparently not Dan Brown) know, a football field is 100 yards or 300 feet long (120 yards if you count the end zones, but you typically dont for this sort of thing). According to Brown, that would make St. Peters 600 feet wide and 1,800 feet long. Yet, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which would know), the dimensions are a bit different: "width of the [nave] at the entrance, 90.2 feet [ ] entire length of the basilica including the vestibule, 693.8 feet". I have no clue where Brown got his numbers. At first I thought that Brown might be conflating the piazza with the church, but the piazza's approximately 1100 feet long and 800 feet wide (again from the Catholic Encyclopedia). Perhaps Brown got the length of "St. Peter's" by adding together the length of the basilica and the piazza, but "St. Peter's" is used to refer to only the church. Plus, hes already mentioned the façade, and piazzas dont have façades. Either Brown's awfully confused or he's just wrong.
UPDATE (1 February 2005): Eamonn Gaines e-mailed me to point out that the dimensions of Piazza San Pietro probably changed in the 1930s as the result of the construction of Via della Conciliazione, which provided an unobstructed view of St. Peter's from the Tiber (which itself was a consequence of the Lateran Treaties signed by the Holy See and Italy in 1929). This does not, however, change the fact that Brown drastically overestimates the length of St. Peter's. Thanks to Eamonn for the insightful comment.
- While walking through the Vatican, Langdon and Vittoria see lots of signs, one of which says "Capella Sistina" (124). I'm guessing the Vatican sign-makers speak Italian and actually get the spelling right: cappella. Brown probably makes a ton of these Italian mistakes throughout the book, but it's not worth my time to check out every (mis)use of Italian.
- Langdon tells Vittoria that the Pantheon "got its name from the original religion practiced there - Pantheism the worship of all gods, specifically the pagan gods of Mother Earth." (224) Langdon is so nonsensical that its hard to know where to begin. First, the Romans did not practice pantheism, the belief that God is everywhere and involved with all phenomena. Second, while the Romans were polytheistic, that doesnt mean they worshipped "all gods." Rather, they worshipped their particular set of gods, as Langdon suggests, contradicting the statement hed just made. Third, while Terra (the Roman equivalent of Gaia, the goddess of the earth) was part of the Roman pantheon, she was not equivalent to the Mother Earth of later neo-paganism that Brown seems to be referencing here.
- In a useless flashback, Langdon recalls a lecture he gave in his Symbology 212 class where he tells his class that "The practice of 'god-eating' - that is, Holy Communion - was borrowed from the Aztecs." (243) It's unclear exactly how this would have occurred, seeing as the communion has its roots in the Last Supper (somewhere around 30 C.E.) and the Aztec civilization did not rise until the 14th century. Even if the Aztecs had been around when the practice of communion began, theres was no contact between Europeans and inhabitants of Central American at that time, what with Columbus not reaching the New World until 1492.
- The BBC correspondent Gunther Glick tells his photographer (through Brown's typically clunky exposition) that "the Rhodes Scholarships were funds set up centuries ago to recruit the worlds brightest young minds into the Illuminati." (256) This is impossible, since the fellowships "were initiated after the death of Cecil Rhodes in 1902." See the Rhodes Scholarship website for further information.
- Brown describes Santa Maria del Popolo as "askew at the base of a hill on the southeast corner of the Piazza. The eleventh-century stone aerie was made even more clumsy by the tower of scaffolding covering the façade." (259) The church sits on the northeast corner of the piazza, not the southeast corner, as this map shows. Also, the current building dates from the 15th century, not the 11th, as Brown asserts. Later Langdon muses about the number of entrances the church has, remembering that "Most Renaissance cathedrals were designed as makeshift fortresses in the event a city was stormed." (261) Santa Maria del Popolo is not a cathedral and if, as Brown claims, it was built in the 11th century, it's not Renaissance in any way.
- Brown places the tomb of Alexander Chigi in the "secondary left apse of this cathedral" (Santa Maria del Popolo) (265). We've again run into the cathedral problem, but Brown makes some more mistakes here. First, the Chigi chapel houses the tombs of Agostino and Sigismondo Chigi, but not that of Alexander Chigi. Alexander Chigi, Pope Alexander VII, lived in the 17th century and is buried in St. Peters (see a picture of his tomb here. Second, the Chigi chapel is not an apse. Apses are round and typically found at the altar-end of churches. The Chigi chapel is rectangular and found near the entrance of the church. While the Chigi chapel is found on the left side of the church, I have no idea what it means for it to be "secondary." Once he's back in the piazza, Langdon's "eyes climbed the tower of rickety scaffolding above him. It rose six stories, almost to the top of the church's rose window" (289). Santa Maria del Popolo has no rose window. Most churches in Italy don't. Extensive information on Santa Maria del Popolo can be found at this impressive Churches of Rome site.
- As the BBC journalists watch Langdon and Vittoria, Chinita tells Gunther that he's "definitely going to hell." He agrees, but insists that hell "be taking the Pulitzer with" him (290). Brown's describing an impossible circumstance, as only work that has "appeared in a U.S. newspaper published at least once a week" is eligible for a Pulitzer Prize in journalism.
- As Langdon, Vittoria, and Olivetti search for the site of the next murder, Langdon asks Vittoria if they're looking for churches southwest of the Piazza del Popolo. She nods and tells him "No churches. From here the first one you hit is St. Peter's." (293) Nonsense. If you go southwest of Santa Maria del Popolo, you'll hit plenty of churches, but never St. Peter's, since St. Peter's is nearly due west from S.M. del Popolo.
- In describing Bernini's mixed media work The Ecstasy of St. Teresa, Brown claims that the sculpture was commissioned by Urban VIII who then rejected it since it was "too sexually explicit for the Vatican." (336-337) Bernini's masterpiece, which consists of more than the central sculpture of St. Teresa and the angel, was meant to be in Santa Maria della Vittoria all along.
- Brown described Bernini's Fountain of the Four Rivers as "A flawless tribute to water [which] glorified the four major rivers of the Old World - The Nile, Ganges, Danube, and Rio Plata." (402) As usual, Brown starts on the right track only to end up horribly confused. While the fountain does represent the four rivers he names, that's about all he gets right. Brown's biggest mistake is thinking that the Rio de la Plata is a river of the Old World. Unless Argentina is now in the Old World, the Rio de la Plata isn't there. Bernini's four rivers are meant to represent the continents: the Nile represents Africa, the Ganges Asia, the Danube Europe, and the Rio de la Plata America.
- After the battle in the fountain with the Hassassin, Langdon climbs up the platform of the fountain and sees "All of Rome spread out before him. He spots a building as famous as any in Rome." (424) Quick! Name a famous building in Rome! The Colosseum? St. Peters? The Pantheon? Did you say Castel Sant Angelo? I didn't think so. Not to mention the fact that you can barely see outside of Piazza Navona when youre in it, even if you're on the center of the fountain.
- "In a final breathtaking revelation, Langdon realized Bernini's city-wide cross of obelisks marked the fortress in perfect Illuminati fashion; the crosss central arm passed directly through the center of the castles bridge, dividing it into two equal halves." (425) I'm not sure what Brown means by "central arm." Crosses have two arms, so neither of them are central. And even using Brown's doctored map, neither arm of his cross cuts directly through Ponte Sant Angelo. He's just making stuff up.
- While describing the election of the recently deceased pope, Cardinal Mortati reveals that he was the Devil's Advocate for the process. Brown goes on to explain that the Devil's Advocate is "that individual responsible for unearthing reasons why the eligible cardinals should not become Pope." (542) More of Brown's half-truths. There is such a role in the Catholic Church, but not when it comes to papal elections. Rather, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, the devil's advocate's responsibility is to prepare in writing all possible arguments, even at times seemingly slight, against the raising of any one to the honours of beatification and canonization. In other words, the devil's advocate finds the skeletons in the closets of those who are being considered for sainthood (or blessedness, in the case of beatification), not the papacy. The office of the devil's advocate was abolished in the early 1980s.
UPDATE (4 January 2005, 8:30 P.M.)
People have contacted me with some more of Dan Brown's mistakes and to provide further information.
- Pope John Paul II abolished the office of the devil's advocate in 1983 (courtesy Sandra Miesel, co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax).
- Brown gots the Illuminati all wrong. According to Miesel they "were a kind of Masonic group bent on world domination. They had nothing to do with science and were permanently shut down by the Bavarian police in 1785 or thereabouts."
There's plenty more dumb stuff like this. If you have any more, feel free to send them in and I'll keep updating this list.
UPDATE (20 February 2005, 12:05 A.M.)
Swiss reader mzfrogg e-mailed with more errors in Angels and Demons:
- Vittoria remembers the first years of her childhood in Switzerland: «She
was nine years old, rolling down hills of edelweiss flowers» (S. 126)*.
«And smashed all her bones», as I would like to add. Everyone grown up with
alpine lore knows: Edelweiss grow mostly on rocks and often in very exposed
places. Those trying to pick one often fall to their death in the process.
They are also very rare. I've only seen one or two in 30 years of walking
around in the mountains
- CERN-secretary Sylvie Baudeloque thinks about the significance of the
church in her life: «The church recorded the benchmarks of her life –
funerals, weddings, baptisms, holiday – and it asked for nothing in
return» (S. 366). Doesn't Brown know we pay church tax in
Switzerland??!!
- Der commander of the Swiss Guard's name is Olivetti. There is hardly a
name more Italian than that Dabei wissen wir doch: Commanders of the Swiss
Guard however are very often of German Swiss stock (aristocratic stock,
too). The current one is called Mäder. There was one called Estermann and
one called Mäder.
- According to Brown, Swiss Guards are «recruited from one of
Switzerland’s four Catholic cantons». The 1990 Swiss census holds that
there are 11 (out of 26) cantons with a clear majority of catholic
inhabitants: Zug, Luzern, Fribourg, Schwyz, Jura, Nidwalden, Ticino,
Appenzell Innerrhoden, Obwalden, Valais, Uri. They are the traditional
Catholic cantons of Switzerland. In an interview I read on the net, Guard
commander Elmar Mäder said that about half of the members of the guard were
from one of the three cantons Lucerne, Valais or St. Gallen (which has a
large Catholic diaspora). The rest are from all over the place, but most
likely from Catholic cantons.
- Brown describes the accent common to Swiss Guards as «fluent Italian
tainted by the Franco-Swiss influence». That is unlikely, as the Catholic
cantons mentioned above are German speaking – except Valais (German &
French), Ticino (Italian) and Jura (French). The typical Swiss Guard accent
is therefore much more likely to be «tainted by the Swiss German
influence». Now I have to put in a word for the author at this point: He
wouldn’t want to waste time explaining to the audience that four languages
are spoken in Switzerland. And since he wrote the book for Americans he’d
have to explain this. Because most Americans don’t know the difference
between Switzerland and Sweden, let alone the cultural niceties of each
country. And since part of his novel is set in Geneva (French speaking)
he’ll have all Swiss speak French, even if it’s not true. The motto seems
to be a fair one: «never let the facts get into the way of a good story».
It is, after all a well plotted book.
- Hang on, though! On page 268, we are given the cv of Rookie Lieutenant
Chartrand: «Chartrand was Swiss army trained and had endured two years of
additional Ausbildung in Bern before qualifying for the grueling Vatican
prova held in secret barracks outside of Rome.» There is a German word
after all: «Ausbildung». As to this obviously necessary «Ausbildung»:
www.schweizergarde.org tells us nothing about it. Also, if it exists, it’s
very very unlikely to be in Bern. Because if there is one staunchly
protestant Canton in Switzerland, it’s Bern.
340 Comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 340 of 340-
At
Jul 21, 2006, 9:37:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 21, 2006, 9:50:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 25, 2006, 11:13:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Aug 10, 2006, 10:56:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Aug 25, 2006, 8:14:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 4, 2006, 3:49:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 4, 2006, 3:51:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 5, 2006, 3:18:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 22, 2006, 2:03:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 26, 2006, 5:48:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 2, 2006, 10:50:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 3, 2006, 5:41:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 3, 2006, 5:43:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 5, 2006, 1:09:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 10, 2006, 4:21:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 17, 2006, 7:55:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 30, 2006, 11:22:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 18, 2006, 7:14:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 19, 2006, 4:13:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 29, 2006, 6:23:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 19, 2006, 7:16:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 20, 2006, 3:47:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 26, 2006, 4:55:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 1, 2007, 5:09:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 4, 2007, 4:39:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 5, 2007, 9:52:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 9, 2007, 10:02:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 15, 2007, 1:44:00 PM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Jan 15, 2007, 8:58:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 4, 2007, 1:46:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 4, 2007, 9:44:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Mar 8, 2007, 3:25:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Mar 25, 2007, 11:55:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Mar 28, 2007, 12:24:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Apr 2, 2007, 10:00:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Apr 4, 2007, 11:59:00 AM ,
Martin L. said...
-
-
At
Apr 7, 2007, 7:05:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Apr 13, 2007, 11:34:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Apr 13, 2007, 12:01:00 PM ,
Danny said...
-
-
At
Apr 15, 2007, 9:37:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 1, 2007, 11:43:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 10, 2007, 6:45:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 12, 2007, 9:52:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 15, 2007, 7:50:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 15, 2007, 7:54:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 17, 2007, 6:50:00 PM ,
Olli said...
-
-
At
May 31, 2007, 5:26:00 AM ,
Ian Spencer said...
-
-
At
Jul 1, 2007, 2:16:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 8, 2007, 4:36:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 13, 2007, 6:35:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 17, 2007, 10:08:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 19, 2007, 3:13:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 22, 2007, 3:26:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 25, 2007, 9:51:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Aug 5, 2007, 10:41:00 PM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Aug 28, 2007, 3:59:00 PM ,
Frontiers of Faith and Science said...
-
-
At
Aug 28, 2007, 10:28:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Aug 30, 2007, 10:58:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Aug 31, 2007, 10:49:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 9, 2007, 6:36:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 14, 2007, 4:22:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 26, 2007, 7:17:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 30, 2007, 3:21:00 PM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Oct 1, 2007, 3:14:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 1, 2007, 8:58:00 PM ,
Danny said...
-
-
At
Oct 2, 2007, 5:35:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 7, 2007, 5:18:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 16, 2007, 12:43:00 PM ,
Ian Spencer said...
-
-
At
Oct 18, 2007, 6:14:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 3, 2007, 5:59:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 14, 2007, 12:08:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 14, 2007, 3:47:00 PM ,
Jake said...
-
-
At
Dec 2, 2007, 10:17:00 AM ,
synesthaesia said...
-
-
At
Dec 6, 2007, 4:31:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 7, 2007, 11:08:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 13, 2007, 11:59:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 17, 2007, 11:52:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 5, 2008, 8:28:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 10, 2008, 4:16:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 12, 2008, 10:05:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 14, 2008, 11:29:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 18, 2008, 11:24:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 25, 2008, 4:27:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Mar 16, 2008, 11:09:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Apr 27, 2008, 3:20:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jun 1, 2008, 10:49:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jun 1, 2008, 10:51:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jun 29, 2008, 5:08:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 23, 2008, 7:32:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 23, 2008, 7:48:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 31, 2008, 11:04:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Aug 22, 2008, 10:46:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 6, 2008, 3:42:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Oct 23, 2008, 2:13:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 21, 2009, 10:35:00 PM ,
siddyrocks said...
-
-
At
Jan 21, 2009, 10:38:00 PM ,
siddyrocks said...
-
-
At
Jan 21, 2009, 10:40:00 PM ,
siddyrocks said...
-
-
At
Mar 12, 2009, 5:19:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Mar 12, 2009, 5:21:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Mar 25, 2009, 6:20:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Apr 19, 2009, 7:52:00 AM ,
jithin said...
-
-
At
May 1, 2009, 7:10:00 PM ,
dabogirl said...
-
-
At
May 16, 2009, 2:47:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jun 7, 2009, 12:09:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jun 28, 2009, 3:14:00 PM ,
Garth said...
-
-
At
Jul 3, 2009, 2:11:00 PM ,
Webmaster said...
-
-
At
Jul 9, 2009, 1:46:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 10, 2009, 7:58:00 PM ,
Webmaster said...
-
-
At
Jul 21, 2009, 7:06:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 27, 2009, 4:44:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 27, 2009, 7:57:00 AM ,
Danny said...
-
-
At
Aug 15, 2009, 10:36:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 6, 2009, 3:16:00 PM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Sep 6, 2009, 3:17:00 PM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Sep 20, 2009, 12:14:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 17, 2009, 7:28:00 PM ,
Sherm; said...
-
-
At
Dec 19, 2009, 3:13:00 PM ,
Joe Barbour said...
-
-
At
Feb 19, 2010, 8:10:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 2, 2010, 9:05:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 30, 2010, 8:58:00 PM ,
Dennis Donovan said...
-
-
At
Jan 30, 2011, 9:21:00 AM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Jan 30, 2011, 9:31:00 AM ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At
Feb 12, 2011, 9:21:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 12, 2011, 12:00:00 PM ,
Danny said...
-
-
At
Mar 14, 2011, 3:27:00 PM ,
Durjoy Biswas said...
-
-
At
May 19, 2011, 2:32:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
May 19, 2011, 10:16:00 AM ,
Jon said...
-
-
At
Jun 11, 2011, 11:17:00 PM ,
Louis E. said...
-
-
At
Mar 5, 2012, 7:11:00 PM ,
Ymara M. said...
-
-
At
May 13, 2013, 7:51:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Sep 11, 2013, 12:13:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jun 20, 2014, 10:55:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jul 22, 2014, 7:25:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Nov 4, 2014, 10:46:00 AM ,
Movie tickets said...
-
-
At
Nov 18, 2014, 2:11:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Dec 4, 2014, 4:37:00 PM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Jan 4, 2015, 11:00:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At
Feb 9, 2017, 10:14:00 PM ,
Hue Shou said...
-
-
At
Oct 6, 2019, 3:12:00 PM ,
Raza said...
-
-
At
Oct 2, 2020, 6:12:00 AM ,
Anonymous said...
-
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 340 of 340
First, a statement (since this has become a matter apparently worth arguing about) of why I am posting here: for the FUN of it. I do not believe that the fact that I have read four of DB's books (A&D, TDVC, Digital Fortress, Deception Point) in the last cuple of months, soley because they were hilariously, entertainingly bad, means that I am "faggot", a "fucking prick", a knob" or an "idiot".
The entertainment, for me, lies is in filling the margins with nitpicks, then checking the web to see what I lost. It's like a good crossword. If my enjoyment annoys you, perhaps YOU are the one who needs to "get a life" and "loosen up"? If it's a "work of FICTION", perhaps each of us should be allowed to enjoy it in our own way, including by posting here and laughing at how bad an author he is.
Yes he's bad. I have yet to meet a "plot twist" that is not broadcast loudly in advance, so that I could see it coming. But that's OK - the fun is in seeing how far you can see the twists in advance of the comically two dimensional retards (described as ubermensch, but too dim to realise what a "rosy sphere" is even when told it should grace Newton's tomb?). For msot readers, I suspect we realised what the eye was for in this book, some 85 pages ahead of Langdon, when the eye was removed.
[To the maintainer: would it be possible to colour code the interesting text that lists errors from the blamebait text that is basically bickering about the "worth" of this page?]
So now some apologetics for the guy.
1) The ambigrams in English has been explained by the fact that English is the "Lingua Puta" of the Illuminati. This, I feel, is a reasonable plot device, given the books are intended for an American audience. Personally, I'd prefer it to have been in the "Language of Angels" (Welsh), but that's just my blood speaking.
2) 7,000km flight in 1hr, Boston-> Geneva, with a top speed of 17,000kph is more than reasonable if you assume respect for air corridors, acceleration and decelleration time, and possible stacking at Geneva.
3) Salman Rushdie calling DB's work "so bad it makes bad look good" definitely does not redeem SR's work in any way: hiw work is unreadably bad. Unlike DB, SR's work was a bestseller that lots of people bought and nobody actually READ. People read DB. Unfortunately. But for SR (one of the most abysmally poor authors in the history of the language) to diss Brown's work, really shows how bad it truly is.
4) The argument that you cannot get telephone numbers on a page which does not contain them is false, and this is a trick I have pulled several times to contact people. For DanBrown.com, the whois record lists the registrant as: Dan Brown, PO Box 1010, Exeter, NH 03833, US. Email: danbrown1@earthlink.net No telephone number is listed, though it often is. Since anyone vaguely knowledgeable about the web would know to do a whois lookup, this is a reasonable part of the story, not a flaw.
5) Now the biggie. Antimatter creation as a source of power. Unfortunately, not even the clever chaps at Cern picked this up, so I may be wrong, but I believe DB said the antimatter came from a singularity. Stephen Hawking in "A Brief History of Time" and later books pointed out that a "naked singularity" (ie, one not wrapped in a black hole) will emit... stuff. Just, any stuff, at random. Proton, antiquark, deckchair. Infinite source of matter and energy, so long as you could hold it open and naked. So, *assuming* that the energy needed to create and hold open a singularity is less than that obtained by the annihiliation of the random emittions of antimatter, then you could use it for power.
But there's more. The whole "recreating the moment of creation, the big bang, and making our own Universe in a supercollider" stuff is being discussed quite seriously at the moment, in places like the New Scientist as recently as last week http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125591.500.html
The basic idea is that in creating a singularity you create a universe on the far side of the singularity which will undergo its own cosmic expansion in its own "otherwhere". The hope is that that otherwhere and our own universe won't exist in the same spacetime so the expansion probably won't vapourise our planet in seconds and follow it with the rest of our galaxy.
See, imagine spacetime as a rubber sheet. A planet is a rock on the sheet, and a "gravity well" is the dent around that rock: roll a marble just right, and it will circle in an elliptical orbit, until friction with the sheet will slow it and cause it to crash just like a satellite slowing from atmospheric friction. So far so good. A black hole is just a gravity well with the sides so big and steep that even moving at light speed, stuff thrown out will fall back in: the momentum will not be enough to carry it away. A singularity is a dip that connects to another dip on another sheet laid below this one.
If you concentrate enough mass in one point, the walls of the gravity well will become vertical, and eventually pinch off, like a droplet of water. There will be a new baby universe, undergoing its own "big bang", inflating ike a balloon.
With all that in mind (massive simplifications though it contains), the source of the antigravity, and the tying of that to the big bang and universe creation, seems less puzzling in the book.
And now, my ObNitpick, for which I must credit my good friend and associate Lee Alley, as it is not one of mine:
Interpol is not what Dan brown thinks it is. This is a common mistake for Americans, but DB irritatingly puts it in all his books that deal with Europe. Interpol is not some pan-European police force with authority to act in any country, like a sort of European FBI. Interpol is a message relay service between lots of national police forces, and also maintains international databases of unsolved crimes, and known criminals. So basically, it's a data organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol "Interpol officers do not directly conduct inquiries in member countries."
["Lingua Puta" above was not an intentional. Apologies for any offense, and I hope others will join me in being amused at the Freudian typo, rather than hurt.]
Read the book, enjoy it if you want to, if you find a mistake get over it.If u hate the mistakes that bad just don't read it!!!
Its's a FICTIONAL book, something about it has to be fictional. Duh!!
I'm reading the book. It's a good read. It's a fictional book for heavens sake. It's not a sermon from a right wing fundamentalist Christian Church in the southern US about the end times as we see them being played out on CNN today - now that's pathetically scary and dangerous. Check the fiction section of your bookstore. That's where this can be bought. Nikolas Kazantzakis (sp?) wrote a great book about Jesus that was fictional (but possible?) If you are so insecure in your own faith that you can't come out into the world without bashing the freedom of creative writing - please - stay at home or lock yourself in a church, synagogue or mosque. Don't play demagogue behind your keyboard and screen via the internet. I am a details person and admire your tenacity for details and scrutinizing the book the way you have. However, you might want to better use your time writing a non-fiction book about the things you are passionate about. But beware - there are critics out there.
A few things I want to get out there:
1. Yes, I'm probably a moron and I have no life, so don't go there.
2. I enjoyed both books, and thought they were compelling.
3. As much as I enjoy good fiction, I can't help but notice when things are completely wrong. I have not spent ANY time at all researching any of the points I will mention, much like the author. You will have to forgive my lack of quotes, but I read the Spanish translation:
a) Once a pope is elected, he automatically changes his given name for a new one. Karol Wojtyla became John Paul II, for example. So, in the last chapter, when Langdon receives a letter from the new pope, there is no way he could have signed (in my Spanish version) Su Santidad Severo Mortati. The moment he uses the pope's title (Su Santidad or His Holyness) he would have to use his new name.
b) At one point towards the end, Ventresca consoles himself from the pain of his wounds by thinking that Jesus had suffered in the cross for 3 days for his sins. Ehhh...no. Jesus was crucified in the morning, died at 3:00 pm on that same day. Was dead for a while and then, on the 3rd day he resurrected, that's the whole point of the religion.
c) This is not about a mistake, but something that annoys me to no end in those books: Langdon is always thinking of the Catholic rituals in terms of the old pagan rituals they replace. For example he says things like "people don't know when they attend Sunday Mass that they are really adoring the god of the sun" and such. In my country there used to be a prison that was shut down and then, after the years, it became a children's museum. Langdon would say that the children playing there don't know that they are really prisoners. Nonsense.
But anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you are writting a book (fictional or not) that is based mainly on the Church, you may want to make a quick call to your local priest, he will gladly clarify a lot of things.
Two more things: Those DB lovers out there who feel offended by the posts and get all defensive and stuff... well, you might want to look in another site that's not labled "Dan Brown is a Fraud"... I'm just saying...
And to the poster above who said that DB was a good writer because he was making millions... so do the drug lords, and that doesn't make them any good.
I'm not saying that DB is a bad writer. He certainly writes interesting and compelling books. But, if he's so big about the facts, he might want to get them straight.
Nice site!
[url=http://kobvnesn.com/iyid/nnvz.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://yvfbdjus.com/zfcn/dppk.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
DB is a great writter i enjoyed his book "angels and deamons" the only thing i want to clear out is that the hassasin might be an arab but hes not muslim if he is then hez an athiest and if u dont like that u can kiss my ass! p.s so what if DB had some mistakes in his book its a fiction book and ur probably just jealouse!!
Okay, fine. I give up. I'll send my complaints to Dan Brown.
Only, why is there no way to actually contact the man on his webpage?
His "contact info" page is here. If you can find any actual contact information, you're a better man than I am.
Finally I broke down and searched the site for the word "agent" and found *one* reference to his agent's name. Wish me luck.
Another discrepancy!
Its been a while since i read the novel but I hope that I remember it correctly.
After the great fall from the chopper, the nurse informs Rogert Langdon that the cam-corder (that Kholer had given to robert before dying) had got damaged and it couldnt relay visuals but only the audio part. And yet, Robert mesmerizes the entire Conclave gathering by installing a TV and showing the visuals of the last minutes of Kholer!!
How can it be done???
> Only, why is there no way to actually contact the man on his webpage?
Kholer would be able to do it...
If you have no life and like to look through books just to find errors then be my guest, but sometimes its fun just to sit down and enjoy a seemingly well written book.
If you have no life and want to look through books just to find errors then be my guest, but sometime its fun just to read a book without being a jackass.
i agree. your jealous
People, people....relax and have a cold one. Put your legs up on your favorite recliner and watch a sporting event. Can't we just read a book without "reading" in to it.
look, guys, could you all please calm dowm?
this is a web page that people have spent a lot of time and effort contributing to, the whole point of this webpage is so that people can correct the factural errors made in this book by DB, so if any posters simply wish to tell us that we are all complete losers then could they please open their own webpage to say so instead of hogging this one?
thank you
What the hell is wrong with you?!?!? Are you going to bebunk cat in the hat next? I tingle.
Share a laugh,
I have lived in Rome for 30 years. I was reading Angels and Demons on the train and started laughing aloud. DB refers to the church of Saint Agnes in Agony, at Piazza Navona. Well the funny thing is that in the Italian translation the translator seems to have ignored the error and translated right back into its correct name Sant'Agnese in Agone. Now even though Saint Agnes suffered we might say an agonizing death (she was first stripped and humiliated in public but her hair grew to hide her nudity, then she was burnt and when the flames did not burn her (obviously no agony there) she was beheaded, humane execution for the Romans. The word agone in Rome comes from the place name of Agone which transformed, we think ,into 'Nagona' and then 'Navona' (thank goodness Brown did not get into the falacious idea that the word has something to do with Naval battles. The church is named 'in Agone' to distiguish it from a church where the saint's grave is found on the via Nomentana. Agone is in fact the area where the Circus Agonalis was and the Agonalis games in fact come from a Greek word 'Agon' which meant first a gathering and then was applied to the games and indeed into the word we have for agony in the sense of struggle. The funny thing is that no saint is ever talked about as being in agony, perhaps out of respect for Christ in the Agony in the Garden. Therefore for a Catholic in America to have heard George Carlin's brilliant 'Irish Catholic' where he invents names of churches such as, Our Lady of Great Agony and Our Lady of Perpetual Motion...well this is one of the reasons I laughed on the train and the other is that the word 'Agonia' in Italian would never be the name of anything as it means 'throes of death' or 'death pangs' in Italian not agony as we know it in English.
I must correct you however, we do say Via Condotti here in Rome. It means conduits and it is the same as saying Conduit street instead of street of the conduits.
But credit to Brown for leaving us hanging. Ms Vetra makes a huge discovering in the Pantheon when they are looking for Raphael's tomb and she shouts out that the tomb is the wrong one since Raphael was buried in the Pantheon in the 1700's long after Galileo lived. Now I assure you... one that there is no such plaque with an 18th century date surrounding Raphael's grave, but since he writes it as her mistake we don't know if it is his mistake or just a twist of fiction, Iwould have let it go were it not for the other boners. But it is indeed interesting that Raphael did want to be buried in the Pantheon and was. However, in the eighteenth century there was an inquest and the body was exhumed or rather the grave opened to ascertain if a skull which was purported to be that of Raphael was indeed his or not. Whe the grave was open the skeleton with skull was found intact.
By the way the four rivers fountain represents the entire globe as there should be only four continents and four corners of the world.
Francisco Julius
I just happened to find some articles on Language Log that perfectly put down in words some of the crap that annoyed me most about the books but I could never define properly.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000844.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/002467.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002325.html
According to the novel, the Swiss guard is unable to triangulate a fixed, uninterrupted radio signal broadcast 24 hours from within the Vatican. Any girl or boy scout given 50 dollars worth of Radio Shack equipment could do that -- and blow the premise of the novel right out of the (brown)water...
Holy Smokes! I've read A&D and found errors on it but dind't imagine there would be a whole site dedicated to them. Good job though, since most of people reading his novels have little or no science background. Yes, it made me cringe my teeth page after page. Yes, it made me laugh at times with so much bable. But you've read nothing!! If you really want to puke over a DB book, read "Deception point". I think he was meaning the point at which you realize you've spent precious money on his book. I'm writning a novel myself and doing research to avoid mistakes like his, but I must admit, after visiting your site, I'll make my research a doctoral one! I couldn't live with such a harsh critic!! (But, I'd love to have any, though). Cheers, good readers!
that's great and all that you have enough free time to pick out all of his errors, but you're just looking like an asshole with no like. just with looking at your website, i can assume that you were that lonely kid at high school who sat alone and made fun of all the jocks and cheerleaders because they actually had a life. i would respect you if you pointed out all the errors without trying to degrade Dan Brown as a person and make him look stupid because that is cruel. There is no room for people like you in this world. everything is about how you're so smart and knowledgable that people can't even sit down and write a good book without you pointing out "you did this wrong and this and this and this" it's a book. you read it for fun. you notice things that aren't right or don't make perfect sense, but it's the same way with movies. sometimes things that are twisted make the story that much better because otherwise it wouldn't fit quite right.
It's a f***ing book. A novel, for crying out loud. You all should apply for book editing positions at major publishing houses. Good grief!!!
yep, i agree.its merely a novel,a "fictional" novel bt sme inaccuracies r REALLY dumb,like it is written in the book that X-33 travels at about 11,000 miles an hour(mach 15),fair enough,but its goin to swiss(geneva) which is about, acoording to the book,3000 miles away,and it takes Mr.Langdon 64 minutes to reach swiss.how is that possible?if the plane goes at a speed of 11,000 miles an HOUR,it shud reach GENEVA in about 15 minutes!!!
Can anyone confirm or deny the claim that Pope Pius IX castrated all the male statues in Rome?
QUOTE: "First, the Romans did not practice pantheism, the belief that God is everywhere and involved with all phenomena. Second, while the Romans were polytheistic, that doesnt mean they worshipped "all gods." Rather, they worshipped their particular set of gods, as Langdon suggests, contradicting the statement hed just made. Third, while Terra (the Roman equivalent of Gaia, the goddess of the earth) was part of the Roman pantheon, she was not equivalent to the Mother Earth of later neo-paganism that Brown seems to be referencing here."
As a matter of fact, the Romans did associate Gaia (Terra) as the wife of Uranus (the sky) and the mother of Saturn (Cronus, the ruler of the titans). The later goddess Demeter(sister to Jupiter, mother of Persephone) was the entity charged with the fertility of the earth and hence the seasons and crops as well. I believe that you, the apparent expert on Dan Brown's minor mistakes, became confused with your Roman gods and that Dan Brown is correct, unlike what you clearly stated. And as for all those who critisize Dan Brown's work, I believe that it is extremely shallow minded to focus on little things like this and not enjoy the art Dan Brown took long amounts of time to complete for you. I pity you there, and if you have any other complaints, I suggest you write a novel of half the beauty and mystery as Angels and Demons and send it to me. Thank you, I look forward to your mail.
Chill! why do you care so much? i get it has mistakes but its just a book. A fictional book. You make it sound like hes comiting a crime.
Apretiate it anyway thogh thanks.
Just cool off.
Well, all this proves that FACTS do not get on the way of big money (is there a top-level ENRON executive around here to infirm?)
I'd like to lend DB a helping hand. The FACTS statement was a pretty damn good marketing idea. When I'll write a novel, I'll keep this in mind.
May be a fraud, not a great writer either ... check out the posting by Williams, Angels and Demons Reviewed. His basic premise is that beyond the adept use of a formula, the whole thing is empty.
geez. chill out, its just a FICTIONAL book.
I hope you realise that you have too much time. Go chill out, sit back and watch your life flying by. Do you think that you have aided the world in any way by wasting your time and complaining about the work of an author of FICTION?
come on! he made a few, well, a bunch of errors, but he's still not a crappy writer!
Chill out dude...or whatever you are. Dont get too excited to prove errors in some fictional book. You are only making it look more real!!!
hey danny i just wanted to say thanks for creating this blog cause im doing a project over A&D and this has really helped out. Oh and and for all you dicks that are telling everyone to get a life and its just fiction, fuck off cause im catholic and the bullshit he tries to pass off as fact really offends me cause it makes us look bad.
-james
Give the guy a break, sure he got some facts wrong even though he claims to research his books, but everyone is entitled to mistakes: especially in a fiction book. I found the books fascinating and a real pleasure to read, and challenge any of you who doubt Browns writing skills to write an entertaining 600 page novel, that is 100% factually accurate and an international best seller. Think you can do it? I don't think so.
Shit man, reading your article has just destroyed me, I feel like I did when my mother told me santa claus wasn't real. I mean, I just had a round the world holiday planned, I was gonna go to the middle east and fly on a magic carpet with Ali Baba, then go to Rome and have a beer with the Illuminati before I hopped on over to london to say g'day to Harry Potter. Last stop on the way home was going to be New Zealand where I was going to chill with the Hobbits for a bit... BUT YOUR DAMN POST RUINED IT ALL! Man, I thought all these blokes were real, somebody please tell me they aren't just works of fiction? Please tell me that they're 100% factual?
Get a life wanker!
Ok, I have read many of the comments here, and I will say this.
While the book is riddled with factual errors, it is a good work of fiction. Taken as such, I listened to the book on CD in my car on multiple trips up and down the East Coast of the US. (I have the unabridged version - 15 discs). his book is a good piece of fiction, and taken as such can be enjoyed.
I am a global traveller, so I know there are factual errors. I am also a student of physics (at least in an amature capacity) so I know he got some (ok, ok...most) of it wrong.
I was reading a Tom Clancy novel "Red Storm Rising" the other week and Tom managed to flip two of his characters in one paragraph of the book (Along with other factual mistakes). Apperantly editors are not infallible either.
I realize that he claims certain things as "Fact" but honestly, it is a work of fiction. Why get worked up over something like this? I had a co-worker who told one of our receptionists that she as going to hell for going to see the Da Vinci Code. Granted that is an extreme example, and this co-worker was a religious zealot the like of which I hope to never meet again, but still, is this something to get worked up over? I think that people need to accept fiction for what it is. Fiction. A Fantasy. A good read (Ok, Mr. Brown is not the best author in the world, but still). Something to pass the time.
I personally hold many heretical beliefs, yet have enjoyed many books dealing with religious themes. Kind of helps that I like military history, and a great number of wars pre-1700 were religious in origin, but still. There is a line from a movie, "Inherit the Wind". The line is said by one Burtrom Cates (Think John Scopes) and he says "Religion is supposed to comfort people." I agree with this. Religion needs to comfort people, so if it is bringing you misery, perhaps a rethink is in order.
Let fiction be fiction. Let *all* fiction be fiction. And remember, have fun!
Langdon flshes back to a moment when he is at some archaeological conference thingy, and notes that therwe is a dinosaur skeleton there. Archaeologists have nothing to do with dinosaurs, that's paleontology.
the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist
Thats what Dan Brown states in the Facts Page
So who everwrote this page on the basis Dan Brown was lieing or misleading, ODVIOUSLY is misleading and you would have to assume a liar? or was he just to stupid to not even read the Facts page from the book before he commented on it?
He cant of as he is so wrong in his comments!
No, I quoted the FACT page accurately. Perhaps you're confusing Angels and Demons with The Da Vinci Code. An understandable mistake, considering that they're essentially the same book.
what kind of loser writes a massive blog over all the mistakes in a book anyway? get a life
It may be just a book and some people do not care about factual stuff (I don't), but the literacy level of this book sucks.
Dan Brown can't write. That is factual. He has no skills. That is factual.
Dan Brown apologists should read something else.
I don't think Dan Brown intended for his book to be a source of knowledge for anyone. I mean look at a lot of hollywood movies, same deal. I don't know why you don't just take his book at face value, it is simply a source of entertainment, a way to experience things that would otherwise be impossible. Don't apply scientific theories and rules to a work of "art". If someone paints a person standing on the cieling of a room, just because it does not follow the law of gravity doesn't mean it is not a good work of art. All in all take the book at face value it is not an advanced physics textbook
The error that annoys me most is the characterisation of Gunther Glick, the so-called "British" journalist. As portrayed by Brown, Glick isn't a Britisher; he's an American pretending to be a Brit, and failing badly. For instance, even if he's heard of Dan Rather (most unlikely, as nobody else here has), he's going to compare himself with a well-known (in Britain) British presenter, such as Trevor McDonald.
And British TV programmes have presenters, not "anchormen".
Honestly I think you people are just nitpicking! I understand correcting the factual errors, like geography and such, but the person who ranted for 10 minutes about the BBC switchboard lady smoking a Dunhill, its hardly crucial to the storyline, we probably shouldnt spend so much time complaining about it! Although a bit naive, Dan Brown has been able to become a huge success on these books, factually correct or not, and complaining about his books wont change that.
ok come on!:
The error that annoys me most is the characterisation of Gunther Glick, the so-called "British" journalist. As portrayed by Brown, Glick isn't a Britisher; he's an American pretending to be a Brit, and failing badly. For instance, even if he's heard of Dan Rather (most unlikely, as nobody else here has), he's going to compare himself with a well-known (in Britain) British presenter, such as Trevor McDonald.
WHO CARES! Just because you think he shouldnt compare himself to Dan Rather doesnt mean anything! It probably would have made more sense, but thats not how it turned out. Remember people, when this book was written it was intended for Americans, so talking about Trevor McDonald would have confused everyone... its just my happenstans that the success went international
German word "ausbildung" means just training. So the sentence you criticized in one of your updates says simply:
«Chartrand was Swiss army trained and had endured two years of additional *training* in Bern before qualifying for the grueling Vatican prova held in secret barracks outside of Rome.»
It starts with a capital letter because all german nouns do. I also doubt that the Swiss army would choose its training camps' locations according to the religion that's most popular in the city. So that part doesn't seem to be an error to me.
I was skimming through Wiki the other day and I thought there was an interesting spot by someone who clearly explained the distorted map issue. He had spotted that in his own pocket book guide to Rome, there was a schematic map appears to match DBs version, which was quite different to the real layout. Another one down to sloppy research it seems...
On page 139 it says that to join the swiss army you will havt to be unmarried. On 258 they are all sitting in the car and talking about Raphael's tomb inside the Pantheon. Then the next line is: "The officer behind the wheel nodded" and then he says "he's right commander. My wife and I". I thought to be a swiss guard you were not allowed to be married?
Brown's translation of norvus ordo seclorum as "new secular order" seems to be a case of apophenia
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-dollar_bill#Reverse_of_current_.241_bill
Just a small point, but has anyone ever, ever, ever, heard of someone British named Gunther Glick. Not a major issue, but it kind of takes authenticity away.
Martin
The book is about entertainment. Yes his books are predictable. Translations do get lost in time. He made it more interesting, if he wanted to stay super true to the facts he would have written a text book. That would be boring. Documents and heresay do go hand in hand in uncovering history. Some people saw the real stuff(heresay) Others made sure we see it their way (documents).
quoting: "it should be mentioned that the Catholic Church has almost always used Latin as the official language and not English, so the idea that Sunday is actually because on that day the god of sun is worshipped is probably true only in english-speaking countries, but in Italian is "domenica" from "DOMINICA" latin for "day of the Lord" (DOMINUS = Lord), in Spanish is "domingo" (same root: Dominus), in French is "dimanche" (again same root)."
In many languages (spanish & french, for example) the roots for the most of the days of the week come from the names of Roman gods (also associated with planets) - such as "mardi"/"martes", associated with Mars.
In English the roots are Germanic languages - the god Thor has his day "Thursday", and Sunday and Monday ARE named for the sun and moon. But following basically the same pattern, as such: Mardi or "day of Mars", mars being the god of war, becomes Twesdaeg, or Tuesday, after Tyr, Germanic god of combat. Different gods, different names, but the same day of the week for the god of war.
Names such as those referring to "the Lord's day" were changed for religious reasons, as well as in some language traditions (Portuguese, for example) days are referred to by their number in the week (with discrepancies as to whether Sunday or Monday is the first day of the week.)
So, Brown is not necessarily wrong that "Sunday" is named after the sun - but it's a stretch to think that we go to church on Sunday to appease sun-worshippers, and that this was some pre-planned subversion on the part of the church. It's more likely they changed the names of the days to stop using pagan god names, rather than chose the day of worship to appeal to pagans.
btw ecclesiastical latin did away with all the pagan-god-based day names, not just sunday, and switched to the day order system: monday - friday = second through fifth weekday (Feria Secunda, Feria Tertia, etc.) with saturday called the sabbath (Sabbatum).
I've read through most of the posts here, though admittedly not all of them. I, too, have many issues with inaccuracies in this book, which hampered my enjoyment of it. I don't know a thing about physics, but my first problem came in with the supposedly untraceable camera. If something emits a signal, it MUST be traceable, I thought. But since I love Rome, I was willing to overlook that and enjoy the fact that a large part of the book was taking me back there. But then came the pieces with the police (nonexistent) at the "small" Pantheon entrance, the outdoor cafe at Tazza d'Oro (nonexistent), Piazza Navona being deserted early at night at the height of tourist season (never hapens), the view you have over Rome from the base of the obelisk in Piazza Navona (not near high enough), the Tiber that drowns out sounds at Castel Sant'Angelo (barely moves in that area - and you wouldn't hear it over the traffic noise anyway), the necropolis being closed to the public (I've visited it), etc. I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack Mr. Brown personally and, while I can forgive inaccuracies with apparently complicated matters of physics, it seems to me that any decent writer should be able to get at least simple things relating to locations right. All you have to do is actually go there, for Pete's sake (no pun intended). But hey, I was even willing to overlook THAT. For me, Dan Brown blew it completely with the helicopter part. I'm sorry, it's an insult to a reader's intelligence, be it real or perceived. And if someone is trying to sell me this jump-out-of-a-helicopter bit as plausible, I don't need to know anything else. I cannot help but disbelieve or at least question anything else portrayed as factual. This has nothing to do with fiction vs. fact, this is plausible vs. nonsensical and therefore good writing vs. bad writing. Sorry, Mr. Brown.
A couple of minor corrections to previous posts, though: BBS is indeed an acronym vs. an abbreviation if you go by the definitions of m-w.com, and the fountain in which the fourth cardinal drowns IS more than a foot deep, as you can see this summer while it's under restauration and not filled with water.
Actually, I have to add another error on Dan Brown's part: If they entered the necropolis through a crate in the ground right underneath the cryp, which in turn is right underneath the dome, they're AT St. Peter's grave. There's no running and dashing and running again, and certainly no major running uphill, as he claims. I visited the site, though through a side entrance roughly at the same level of the dome ... and apart from decending a number of steps and walking down a short corridor, you are at the grave site. Period.
What a long page of comments and vitriol; A few have certainly missed the point that you're angry about Brown's claim to have fully done the research, and that the book is factual.
i thoroughly enjoyed reading the book, and i've enjoyed reading this page of errors too.
i was curious while reading the book, to learn how much was 'true' and how much was just hype for the sake of drama. MUCH more bad editing than i'd noticed. Yes i suspected the science was garbage; good to find out that the illumination path was creatively constructed too.
maybe brown should have floated the idea with a critical group before publishing. Maybe he doesn't care. Because he's made plenty of cash, and many people now believe his version of history.
One thing that annoyed me was the misleading comment scientists at CERN made in the beginning regarding the failed super conducting super collider (SCSC) that was started but never finsished in the US. Brown ahs his characters say that the religious right shut down construction of the device. That is false. The SCSC was defunded by liberal democrats in Congress, led by liberal media like the NYT. It was started by President Bush 41.
Gratuitous and misleading mistakes really detract from a story.
BTW, the similarity of D&A to the DV Code only tales away from both.
Interesting read. I can agree that he is not even close to factually accurate. That flashback about him teaching really messed me up.
I admit that he's a bad writer. Personally, I think he drags things on too long while lacking proper detail. He also had to add a plot twist every other chapter. His books really remind me of video game story lines and how most do not have focus. Trying to find a real climax in this book is impossible.
With that said, I think Angels & Demons is still a solid book. So what if the facts are wrong? That shouldn't be something to judge a story on. It had a few exciting plot twists. It had a nice theme. It also kept me interested until the end. It wasn't deep, but I still enjoyed it.
If I had to pick something I didn't like about the book, it would be the Hassassin's motive. He calls himself a Muslim, yet mentions that he believes in multiple gods. I think Brown was referring to Sumerian mythology or something similar. The Hassassin also wants to join the Illuminati, which doesn't make sense. The organization Dan presents in the book hates all religion.
I'm glad you mentioned the cellphone dial tone thing. I read that like 5 times in a row and was like wait, what? Since when do cellphones have dial tone?
It states on the copyright page that it is a work of fiction. Fiction is a literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
You are accusing a self-proclaimed novelist of being a novelist.
Try to correct your own typing blunders instead of finding fiction in fiction.
"At the second murder, "BBC" is described as an acronym. It's not, it's a abbreviation. (OK, this is a minor detail, but it's one of those "common" mistakes that professional writers of English are aware of)."
This is NOT true. An acronym is the use of the initials of an agency or organization...etc...an abbreviation is the shortening of a name. So...FBI would be an acronym. And...dept. store would be an abbreviation.
I think that may be an American English vs British English difference.
In British English, an acronym is a pronounceable word, e.g. radar, snafu, NATO, UNESCO. The BBC is indeed an abbreviation, as is FBI and IBM. Acronyms are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are acronyms.
American dictionaries seem to subscribe to the suggestion that there is an alternative meaning of acronym which simply means the initial letters, but I'd have to say it doesn't match very well with the derivation of the word which suggests "name". I think that one is a draw :)
I may be wrong owing to the fact that I only have the audio version of this novel, but I believe that Brown credits Karl Marx as being a member of the Illuminati, describing him as "Karl Marx of the Russian Revolution." Although Marx was a vital inspiration for Russian socialists, he himself would have been surprised to see he and Engels' theories applied to agricultural Russia. Also, and more importantly, Marx died in 1883, more than 30 years before either revolution.
Also, there is a further requirement of the Swiss guard, they must not only be Swiss, but come from one of the Catholic Cantons of Switzerland.
About the map in Dan Brown's Book you said: It's not the Via Condotti, it's the Via dei Condotti. Do you know you are wrong? I went to Rome on my honeymoon and did a lot of walking and there are actually two streets in Rome, one named Via Condotti and another Via dei Condotti...this is the case for several streets which is why it is so hard to manuever through the streets of Rome.
Perhaps you should get your facts straight before picking on an accomplished writer.
Yes, I've been to Rome, too. And I know what I'm talking about. People sometimes say just "Via Condotti" (as a commenter above pointed out) and I've seen maps that say "Via Condotti." But most maps I've seen have the "dei." So I was probably too harsh on Dan Brown. His location of the street is still wrong.
I AM from Rome.
And I can confirm that there is only one street and it is Via Dei Condotti as you could easily find out using internet.
Some people in Rome may say Via Condotti but it is actually a small number.
Also the name comes from the description of the place. "Via dei Condotti" litterally means "Street of the water channels", "water pipes" or "conduits".
So the "dei" has to stay.
But I am not surprised for such an accomplished writer.
Referring to the comment about "after sending a fax, you don't stay on the line", some older faxes did have this ability. Oki faxes still had it until recently. You pressed a button before you sent the fax, and when the fax was finished being sent a light illuminated on the receivers fax telling you the person was still on the other end, and that you could pick up the handset and resume a conversation.
Just to keep the list complete, someone noted this on Wikipedia:
I realise that no timelines are given in the book, but assume it's set in the present day. Given that, isn't there a discrepancy in the birth date of the character conceived by IVF? The first 'test tube baby' was Louise Brown born in 1978 - the character in the book must have been born in the early 60s. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Hi!
its stated in the list while refering to the origins of the name pantheon that
"Third, while Terra (the Roman equivalent of Gaia, the goddess of the earth) was part of the Roman pantheon, she was not equivalent to the Mother Earth of later neo-paganism that Brown seems to be referencing here"
neo-paganists do not actually worship Mother Earth... they don't actually have belief in God or Gods etc as such, rather they worship nature and the elements. No personification (not that this changes Dan Brown's errors etc)
I found the book quite interesting. If you allow the problems to slip and dont think about it so hard it is quite good. And i noticed how in Piazza del Popolo they ask if any churches are SW of them. I looked, and directly south west is Castel Sant'Angelo.
What is the reason for pointing out all the mistakes Brown made? The reason that I would take would be this... Brown's book is not factual, there are many historical, techinical, geographical, architectural, and scientific errors and should not be read like a history or science textbook. When I purchased the book I was not looking for a history lesson. I wanted to be entertained and I am glad for my "ignorance" of all these errors being pointed out. It didn't take anything away from my enjoyment of the book. As a catholic, I find most of this book far fetched, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the book. People this is fiction, a story created by a person to entertain. If it is not entertaining to you because of your knowledge of science or history don't read it. I would think that if Dan Brown's work is so inferior, you would just disregard it and ignore it. Instead many of you are dissecting it to point out all of the mistakes. Maybe Brown achieved his goal of getting people interested in his book even if it is just to point out the mistakes.
why does it matter if he made mistakes in the book or not? Its a book, and a fiction book at that, its not all gonna be true. Why do people harp on him for making so many mistakes, i thought it was one of the best books ive ever red. The book is suppose to keep you interested throughout the entire thing. So everyone who actually cares about the mistakes is just stupid
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paperback edition, page 338, first cardinal killing:
The figure was a pallid outline against the earthen floor. "I think he has been stripped naked". Langdon flashed on the nude corpse of Leonardo Vetra. Leonardo Vetra was the first victim, not the first cardinal to be killed.
In order to see some kind of structure at the feet of the angel on top of Castel Sant'Angelo, you have to walk a considerable distance away from it. I know because I tried to photograph it and I had to walk almost to the middle of the Ponte Sant'Angelo to see half of that sculpture. In the book, Langdon is trying to push the doors of the castle, looks up and sees some kind of balcony at the angel's feet.
I am not a 100% sure but I believe the main entrance to the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria, where the Ecstasy of St. Theresa resides, is blocked by a wall and you enter by one of two little doors on each side? In the book, Langdon opens the door and is greeted by the main nave.
Piazza Navona is totally surrounded by buildings. Impossible that Langdon could have seen the Roman skyline. He should have used the church on Trinita dei Monti which is at the top of the Spanish Steps and you can see all of Rome. Plus it has an obelisk!
I bought the book after visiting Rome, hoping to have a wonderful time reliving the places I had seen. My reading experience was marred by the realization that Mr. Brown did not bother to pay attention and did half assed research for the book. You cannot properly attain suspense of disbelief with such careless prose. It is akin to reading a book and a character looking at the American flag in the Statue of Liberty's upraised hand. Patriotic, stunning visual, but simply not true.
Re lightshadow's note on Santa Maria della Vittoria:
there IS a main entrance/exit – but inside the door is a windcatching wooden structure with doors to the left and to the right. Langdon is only more or less greeted by the main nave, he would be able to see it through a glass panel.
Roy, you are dumb. "The book would be VERY boring if he were to use real history"
That's the dumbest thing i have ever heard. he claims that everything is factual, so why would he then go and make shit up?
Aside from the facts i don't think there could be a more wordy author on the planet, i'd rather read that OWL book that one guy mentioned.
Very interesting list. Please add one more:
In the helicopter scene where the anti-matter bomb was annihilated and exploded on top of the city of Rome, it was explained as if it was a harmless fireworks.
The radiation of that amount of GAMMA ray which equals to several kilo-tons of TNT energy release, could have killed almost all the human beings as well as probably plants and bacteria in the region.
This is far too extensive. Your examples of his fallacies and complications are nit-picking at the most infinitesimal details at best. Because all his proportions aren't "to the millimeter" accurate doesn't mean you should devote your time to working on such a ridiculously labyrinthine rebuke. I surely noticed some inaccuracies but nothing worth churning up such a fuss about. Anyway, just calm down a little bit. It's just fiction. You must remember that. Fiction means made up. Just because a story is based on factual things, doesn't mean everything has to be spot-on accurate. New York is a real city, but I don't see anybody preaching about the ridiculousness of Spider-Man.
It's great to see such a list of the multitudinous errors in Brown's book, both from the original post and all the others raised in comments.
I do take issue with the comments of the original post on the size of St. Peter's, however. Brown's original says this: "The marble façade blazed like fire in the afternoon sun. Adorned with 140 statues of saints, martyrs, and angels, the Herculean edifice stretched two football fields wide and a staggering six long." The original posting takes the dimensions of the "edifice" in the second sentence to be referring to the "marble façade" mentioned in the first sentence. But this is obviously an incorrect assumption given that façades aren't usually described as "long," but rather having a width and a height.
The "edifice" is obviously meant to refer to St. Peter's basilica as a whole and the piazza in front (including the area encompassed by the colonnade). That the colonnade is included is clear, since there aren't 140 statues on the marble façade, but there are 140 on the colonnade.
Moreover, the original posting makes a ridiculous error in assuming that the width of the nave should have anything to do with how we would measure the width of a church. In a Roman style basilica, the nave refers to the width between the central set of columns, not the whole width of the church. And, in St. Peter's basilica, even the width of the church at the nave is not the same as the width of the façade, which is much wider than the interior of the sanctuary of the church. The width of the façade is about 350 feet wide, well over the 90 feet width of the nave's entrance. (The maximum width of the interior of the sanctuary would be better understood by the width at the transept, not the nave.)
Anyhow, the original posting has a point that "St. Peter's" usually refers to the basilica, though that is the name of the square in front as well, so if you wanted to talk about the whole "edifice," it could make sense to give dimensions of both. By that account, Brown's figures make perfect sense. Only someone who was trying hard to misunderstand would think that "edifice" in this case referred to the church or the façade, since neither reading makes sense in context.
First off, the book is fiction. No one with any common sense should ever read a "Fiction" book looking for facts. It is meant to be read for fun. In that respect it does succeed. It is a very well written story that is interesting and the pacing and wording work very well.
historically accurate...no. Good book...yes.
An error that nobody has mentioned here yet:
Steve Jackson Games (Mentioned by Vittoria Vetra in chapter 27) is not a computer game company. It publishes a collectible card game called "Illuminati: New World Order" (not "Bavarian Illuminati: New World Order", as implied in the novel). The game in question is not playable on the internet. (Yet...)
Also, in Chapter 87, a character wonders how many points they would get (in the game) for killing the pope. The game doesn't have a points system.
For more info on the game, read:
http://www.sjgames.com/inwo/
wow, y cant y'all try to enjoy the damn book? get a life!
well I'd like to say well done on compiling that list. It seems to me that the cries in many of the other comments to get a life and be less pedantic and just enjoy the book for entertainment's sake are frankly idiotic. Firstly some basic knowledge of what he's basing his book would help just generally. His books seem to be crammed with facts as a foundation for the theories in the plots however if these facts are inaccurate what is the point of the book? Secondly, it's all very well saying that you should just 'enjoy' the work of fiction as just that but if he wanted pure fiction why 'name-drop' so many places? And why do so with hideous inaccuracy? Basic spelling mistakes of the actual name? It's ridiculous to compare it to criticising Harry Potter which is clearly on a different level where every fact type thing is pure invention and intended to be so whereas these books are supposed to be realist-fiction, that is a work of fiction with basis in fact. Regardless thankyou for some entertainment.
As a retired chemistry professor with some experience in nuclear energy, I immediately realized the book is a work of science fiction. I was therefore prepared to accept it also as a book of theological, geographical, and art history fiction. I enjoyed it very much. What I wondered most about were things like how Langdon and Vittoria could run for so many miles through streets, dark passage ways, tunnels, etc. and still keep going for 24 straight hours. And, having dealt with the ashes of several departed relatives, I wondered how the body of the Camerlengo could have been so thoroughly cremated by the type of conflagration described, that he could be swept up into an urn and interred with his father so easily and cleanly.
guys is just a novel let it go
Just one question that has been puzzling me ever since I started reading the book... I am not sure if it is a writing error or an error in reading on my part.
Well, how did Leonardo Vetra's death go unrecorded in the first place? How did the assassin get into Cern, kill Vetra in his own lab & get out? Is there no security in Cern? And more than that, are there no surveillance cameras in such a high-end research facility?
If the above is indeed a mistake, it's a glaring one indeed... why, the rest of the events in the book would never happen if the murderer gets identified on camera in Cern itself!
Dan Brown should leave out mentions of Buddhism because he clearly has no understanding of the religion. A few people already mentioned that Hatha yoga (and all yoga) is a HINDU practice, not Buddhist. An even worse mistake can be found on pg. 90..
"You mean God?" Kohler demanded.
"God, Buddha, The Froce, Yahweh, the singularity, the unicity point-call it whatever you like-the result is the same."
Brown attempts to give examples of different names for God, but anyone who has read a 6th grade world history textbook knows that Buddha was a man, not a god. According to www.buddhanet.net, "Buddhists do not take refuge in the Buddha with the belief that He is a god or son of god. The Buddha never claimed any divinity."
I feel rather stupid leaving a comment and not saying anything against Dan Brown's writing, but I'm curious, in reference to all the things pertaining to science, if A&D was written in 2000, how much of the science stuff was known before 2000?
Nicole W:
You are absolutely correct in your observation that all yoga comes from Hinduism but you're incorrect in the fact that Buddhism does not portray Buddha as a god. The worship of Buddha as Mahayana he is a "God."
Actually there ARE exactly 140 statues at St. Peters, but on top of the collonade, not on the facade!
Well.. I must say i find this blog very impressive. There's only one thing i don't quite understand: What's the sole purpose of all of this? (Mind you, i'm not trying to be provocative, I'm simply curious.)
I mean just look at all the time and energy some of us here have put into "setting Dan Brown's ridiculous mistakes right"? What's the point?
Let the whole world see the idiot behind a so called genious? Make Brown re-write his book or mayby perhaps stop writing at all? Or is this just a public declaration against the mis-use of 'FACT' in literature?
Having said that, I must praise some of the comments and corrections here. In the end I was simply ashamed of the very little knowledge I have in science.
Still, even the most smartest and, um, enlightening arguments can fall flat if there's no purpose to be found.
Like I said in the beginning, I'm not writing this to provoke or get the same treatment poor Lazarus here got, I'm just curious and struggling to understand why get so mad over something so insignificant?
Then again I havn't finnished the book yet so mayby I'll be more understanding after I've read it.
Pointing out Errors in a fiction book where the author has already declared it a fiction is an childish act at the best especially when...
...ALL THE RELIGIOUS BOOKS IN THE WORLD ARE A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION OF THOSE WHO HAD NOWHERE ELSE TO GO AND NOTHING ELSE TO DO IN THOSE PRE-MODERN DAYS.
What feeds me, protects me, facilitates me is my family and Science and not that something called 'religion'.
Even my psychological/mental problems will be solved by a Psychiatrist (if I do need one) and not god.
All I know is if every human on this earth gets engaged in at least basic academic education and if he/she prefers to continue that and then chooses a good profession and STAYS ENGAGED in that and looks up to real flesh and blood people for inspiration (especially in times of trouble) like say Denzel Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Buce Lee, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkins,... pretty much anyone who is intelligent and done some positive creative work in life (I NEVER count charity here as creative and intelligent) then WE WON'T NEED THAT ARTIFICIAL COMPLICATION CALLED GOD AT ALL.
you are such a loser. it does not matter what he wrote. you should take the story as it is and for the message that it gives. Dan Brown is a great writer and if he wasn't his books wouldn't have been published, would they? Angels & Demons is not a text book. as far as i see it you're FULL OF SHIT. i dont understand why you read books if you are just going to analyze them. just read and take it for what it is even if you dont like it.
At the CERN labs, Langdon learns that “one square yard of drag will slow a falling body almost twenty percent” (Brown, 23). This claim is firstly outright false, as Kohler is referring to a percent, and not all human drags are the same—even for one human, body position plays a drastic role in drag. The next outrage that follows long after is when Langdon jumps from the helicopter with a sunshade. Consider the following: the average human is only barely capable of sustaining a hold of their body’s mass by their arms for 5 minutes, the average human cannot hold their mass with horizontal arms alone for any amount of time, and Robert is by no means an extraordinary human. Even if he could do this, his gained surface area would only be approximately two square metres. The surface area lost by himself being vertical as opposed to horizontal loses almost 1.5 square metres. Robert would not only let go of the make-shift parachute immediately after jumping, but even if he could hang on, he would die instantly on impact, water or not (actually, water doesn't help in the slightest at the speeds he would be approaching).
During one of Langdon’s many moments of genius or holy inspiration, he finds a pattern on the map of the locations of the churches; “Langdon noted an oddity in their locations. Somehow he had imagined the churches would be scattered randomly… Improbably, the three churches seemed to be separated in an enormous city-wide triangle,” (Brown, 401). This issue is not an inaccuracy, rather a needlessly obvious statement that led to an unrealistic discovery. The geometry of having three points is interesting. There are an infinite number of ways to arrange the points on a plane. There are also an infinite number of ways to arrange them colinearly on a plane, but this is a much smaller infinite. If the points are not arranged colinearly, there are only three, and each point is adjacent to the remaining two, no matter the arrangement. This means that unless they are collinear (which is less likely than not), the points will inevitably form a triangle. It would be interesting if a line were formed, as the collinear arrangements are a subset of the randomized arrangements, but a triangle, if not a line is going to be formed, there is no great discovery here.
Antimatter plays a large role in the plot of this book, and I feel it is impertinent to make such false claims. To start this off in the order of narration, the antimatter is introduced as a speck floating in a magnetic field. When seen under a microscope, it is described as “a shimmering globule of mercurylike liquid,” (Brown, 77). In reality, it would be entirely invisible, as Vittoria mentioned it is electron antimatter, and antimatter holds the precise physical and chemical properties as their regular counterparts, hence electrons should be a clear gas.
The next issue, which is found in the previous statement is that these happen to be positrons, which Ms. Vetra also mentioned, stating, “[we] built a reverse polarity vacuum to pull the antimatter positrons out…” (Brown, 75). These particles would then have positive charges, and would be strongly attracted to the nuclei of the surrounding canister walls’ atoms, and would annihilate under its own accord.
Even if this does not occur, electromagnets are only capable of exerting a uni-directional force. In a static environment, this is not an issue, as forces on the antimatter do not change, so the magnets can be tuned, but in a dynamic environment, adaptability rapid enough to prevent annihilation is impossible, once the canister is picked up, its will annihilate.
Next, the canister containing the antimatter would be noted by a metal detector. The laws on which it functions requires an electromagnet to be present. Electromagnets consist of coils of conductive material with a voltage passed through. Metal detectors detect anything that can carry a current, therefore any material used must be detected by metal detectors.
The last caveat I have with this grossly fictional component of the story line are the many false claims made about energy sources and generation; “its the energy source of tomorrow,” (Brown, 80) or “antimatter is important technology,” (Brown, 83). True, the process of annihilation is entirely efficient, but energy is required to make the antimatter. In fact, so much energy is required to make it, that all particle accelerators keep their own generating plants, each powerful enough to power a third of Toronto. The process is by no means efficient, and cannot possibly be conceived as a source of energy, which is the basis of the Vetra research.
"UPDATE (27 January 2005): Niek Kouwenberg e-mailed me and argued that "Shaitan" is of Islamic origin (it's from the Koran), so Langdon and Brown are correct here."
No, they aren't. "Satan" appears in the Old Testament and in the New Testament centuries before Mohammad was born.
"The roots of Communion/Last Super are actually borrowed from Mithraism, which in turn borrowed it from older religions."
No, the Last Supper was a PASSOVER meal, a JEWISH meal established 1400 years before Christ, well before Rome existed. Sheesh.
First of all, you should know that it is really sad you took the time to do all this. I understand that you were anoyed by a few simple mistakes, but the fact that you went this far to proove Brown wrong is way overboard. Yes, there are errors in his books. However, lets not forget that these books are in fact fiction. Angels and Demons was a book writen to entertain and to make one think, not to inform. I personally believe that Dan Brown is one of the greatest writers of our time. I would like to see any of you write a book that requires half as much involved research and information as any of his do and make little or no mistakes. At least Brown has an imagination.
The central premise to the plot itself is wrong. The private secretary of the Pope never becomes the Camerlengo. There is exactly a Cardinal in Vatican whose job is to be in charge of the Catholic Church (serves as acting head of State of the Vatican City) during the sede vacante. The official title is "Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church".
An example From 1970 till 79 Camerlengo was a French Cardinal named Jean Villot. In his capacity of Camerlengo, he served as the interim administrator of the Vatican between Paul's death and John Paul I's election, and then between John Paul I's death and John Paul II's election in 1978, during the August & October conclaves respectively.
Leonardo could never have adopted Vittoria, since he was single (at least, he *was* a Catholic priest, wasn't he?) and single people aren't allowed to adopt in Italy.
I have had more then enough from Dan Brown and his Neanderthal attempt to discredit God. As the only living authority on angels and demons one that has seen them up close and personal a few times in the past, Dan Brown's whole concept of them is quite flawed. Yes, universally flawed and I have the videotape evidence to proof it all.
Yes,the evidence shows conclusively that heavenly angels always appear in a white blinding light. Where demons, simply don't have any light in them. Angels have normal human like features. However, most demons resemble wild vicious snarling animals with several rows of razor-sharp teeth. They are intensely wicked creatures whose many facial expressions are closer to wild animals suffering from a severe form of rabies.
Unlike that now rich atheist Dan Brown and his powerful cronies in Hollywood who exploit religion to make millions off of those brain-dead zombies that go to see these contemptible films. I will never sink that low ever.
As the keeper? I will soon be obligated (end of days) to release this video data that finally exposes for all the World to see that invisible to most spiritual realm of good and evil.
I now warn Dan Brown,Tom Hanks and Ron Howard not to underestimate me or the creator the known universe. NO, what ever secrets you may have discovered no matter how mind-boggling they may seem, your data only scratches the surface. There are many mysteries connected with the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, many of these can be found in the holy Scriptures under the term of "sealing up the books"
I ask anyone who has a little of that old-fashion fortitude and courage to challenge me with this information on a one on one basis. If you really want to know the truth contact me by e-mail,or stay dumb & silent and be lead like sheep to the slaughter Dan Brown or Obama style........
My only E-mail address
Blacksheep_hellishot@yahoo.com
I'd like to hear from Dan Brown himself. Or the the Vatican,the Catholic archdiocese,or the average Joe and Mary.............
end
Dan Brown is great. I enjoy his movies.
you made a mistake too;
"seeing as the communion has its roots in the Last Supper (somewhere around 30 C.E.)"
Its 30 AD, not 30 C.E.
Garth
I am amazed that you can boil so much soup on the "research-intensive" quote. This author is a "fiction" author in case you had not checked. Fiction genre do not use "fact" in the same vein as you and I would expect from a scientific or historical perspective. "Facts" in the fiction vein are only inspiration and not gospel... This seems to be where the issue is residing in your lengthy discussion of his "flaws" in what is, in fact, a work of fiction.
I am a science fiction author, completing my own first novel and if I had adhered completely to science "fact" in the novel, combined with actual historical events that really did occur, I'd never be writing this book. My suspicion is that Dan Brown is writing in the same vein and not to write from historical truth that you seem to be so adamantly defending while forgetting this is merely a story.
And... by the way, I am a computer scientist having grown up with chemists and physicists in the house, so I do see the flaws in Dan's stories, but I do not let these destroy the entertainment value. This seems the be the crux of many of the comments others here have been gleefully using to bash Dan's writing.
Fiction is there to inspire and to question reality or truth as we know it. I hope Dan Brown keeps writing as he wishes and not in a form to keep the historians satisfied with accuracy at the expense of a good story.
On page 246 of the paperback version of Angels & Demons, one of Brown's character refers to the Pantheon as"...the world's largest free-stand dome until 1960 when it was eclipsed by the Superdome in New Orleans!" Wrong. The Astrodome in Houston was the first such modern structure and it opened 1965. The Superdome followed several years later. (This error may have been noted by others in the extensive notes preceding this one but I've not read them all.)
And so you've proven a point about a domed structure reference that no one really cares about in a fictional story. So impressive.
All you guys seem to do is to pick apart this guy for historical goofs.
Personally, I think he's screwing with you to make you all learn history by actually going out to "prove" him wrong. In fact, the more I see of his writings, I think that may truly be the case.
Either way, I love the stories and he bends the facts as needed to make them work. That is why the call it freaking FICTION! - There is where I be making Stan Kinneson scream here now -
there is a good reason FOR ME.years before, i had a strong faith to God. but as i started relating to what happens around me, i doubt that science versus religion issue. which side is to believe. science has bigbang theory, bible has genesis; science has dinosaurs, bible has adam and eve; there are contraception issues, cloning, et cetera.my head aches in this war.
i pray to God to give me an answer.
then i found a&d.read it. and found an answered prayer.though a&d only clarified my cofusion in the Creation, still,it proves that science and religion proves the same thing - there must be a Source . in big bang, where did the huge amount of concentration come from? Also, where did that emptiness come from? uhh. . . let there be light and there is light.there is a Source.
there are many confusions left.still a&d is a help, chapter 19.
if there are errors in that chapter, please tell me.for my wrong grammars, pardon me, im not good in english.
I didn't read all the comments. There's over 300 of them.
But this is to all the nit picking nancys, including the original blogger, who remarks that their entire problem with the book, which I haven't read as a note, is because Dan Brown points out these are "FACT". Fact does not equal Truth. That would be called Law, Axiom, Theory, or Indisputable Fact. Check your dictionaries, if you have them. Heck, check the online dictionary. A Fact, is a statement, believed to be, or reported to be true or have happened, to have been said to exist. It does not proclaim nor disprove "truth". Thus, Dan Brown has shown how horribly illiterate the large majority of you are, by failing to grasp the very basics of the language and accept that Facts are just that. Statements of things purported to happen, in which case, the entire book, is Factual. It may not be true. It may not be correct. But it IS Factual and your complete and entire blogging argument is defeated.
*shrug*
From the Oxford English Dictionary, some definitions of "fact":
- "a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction"
Your claim that facts are statements is just bizarre - was it a fact that the sky is blue only when someone said for the first time, "The sky is blue"? Also, by your definition of facts as "Statements of things purported to happen," wouldn't every work of fiction ever written be factual? That's a rather bizarre claim...
I'm Italian. I'm reading Angels&Demons now, in English. This DB really can't write an Italian word or sentence without a mistake in it! Is it misinformation or is he showing contempt for Italy? It takes a second to check in the web that Carbonieri do not exist, they are Carabinieri, or Construzzione is costruzione, and so on and on.
And then, Alpha Romeos? Alfa in this case is not even the first letter of the Greek alphabet (also spelt "alfa" in Italian), but an acronym for "Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili". Really, such mistakes can only be done deliberately or by an utterly ignorant and careless individual.
dan brown is gr8 whichever asshole sayz whatsover........after al itz a story........
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm not sure what the point of this web-page is about. I got bored reading about the frivolous errors pointed out by the author and started skimming. Of course there are errors. He got the minimum height of the Swiss guards wrong! holy shit! This is not a history book and it is not claimed to be. its a novel for f**k sake. Lets point out the factual errors in Jurassic park while we're at it.
It was a crap book and crap movie. so what? get a life. im feeling embarrassed i bothered to write this response.
Please tell me this is all a big joke, a huge exhausted joke.
Dan Brown is a fiction writer, a mediocre one at that. He did what many writers do, he wrote a STORY based on the world around us. Its people like you who give him more credibility than he truly deserves.
Stop spending your precious time debunking a fairy tale and do something more productive like listening to your lawn grow.
I guess that book really hit a nerve. OK, it's got a lot of errors. Is that any reason to go through and write page after page of rebuttal?
I'm sure it's hard to face the truth after living a ridiculous lie, but admit it... Your religion is ridiculous. Don't take Dan Brown's word for it. Forget about him. Just take a good hard look at what your reading in that bible of yours. There is the fraud.
Ancient peoples found a way to gain treasures and earthly pleasures by exploiting the fears of the common people. They pretended to have some divine power or to communicate with the gods. Science proved that there are no sun gods or harvest gods, so they lost their power. Well, religions have evolved just as humans have. The religions today are able to answer these doubters, by means of catch-22's that take advantage of logic loopholes. "If there was any reason to believe, there would be no reward for believing. You must have faith," etc.
So the shamans and wizards and oracles of our time have managed to carve out quite a nice niche for themselves in terms of power, influence, and, let's not forget, worldly treasures.
You are being fleeced.
Everyone speaking of the "innaccuracies" in Brown's writing (mainly Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code) need to remember that the novels he writes are FICTION and are written for the enjoyment of the reader, not for historical accuracy. Brown is not a historian, despite his use of location and history, but an author who writes novels for enjoyment. Brown is an excellent writer, and people need to realize that he is writing to excite and interest people.
Hey man, just put your hands off the great masterpiece we've got. Neither you nor your nit-picking is going to stop Brown from being called a great storyteller. Its pure fiction and you probably don't pick out gravels from a mountain and say whether it belonged to California or Mt. Everest. Same is the fiction, its truly an author's own views. You may raise your voice but can't claim that he is a fraud or something else. Well, if you don't intend to be a subject of mockery..., accept this sound advice from me, wash your face, have some fresh air, and get another topic worth considering.
I wonder how you are not any complaining jealous clerk who is hurt to see others' assets.
I pray that you won't be publishing some other sorts of absurdness like:- "Why Harry Potter's broom flew?...or other nonsense".
"YOU MUST HAVE REALLY GOT YOUR BRAIN SWOLLEN WHILE TRYING TO LIST ALL THE ERRORS, EH?"
To read one Dan Brown Book is enough
for a lifetime. Great story line, poorly written.
Thanks for a most entertaining discussion, although I found the personal attacks both on Dan Brown and also on other contributors less than worthy. It strikes me that DB starts with a brilliant idea, conceived as popular fiction for a largely American mainstream audience. As such he does a fairly good job of pacing the novel, allowing a reader with no previous knowledge of the specialist subject matter to enjoy a fast-moving romp through Rome. He even manages to flatter such a reader by creating plenty of instances where even the least educated would find themselves ahead of Robert Langdon (sometimes by several pages) in woeking out the next clue. (Did ANYONE else fail to read the backwards script on the final brand?)
The FACT comment at the front of the book is unforgivable though, being palpable untrue.
The one thing I found interesting was the religious flavour of the book in general, which to my mind presented Dan Brown's attitude to religion in a light which contrasted starkly with the reputation he has acquired. Whilst I found much of Brown's descriptive writing and dialogue frankly rather infantile, the two sections in which the thoughts of a character are expressed in support of Christianity and religion in general (firstly by the CERN secretary and then the camerlengo in his big address to the Illuminati) struck me as the two most genuine, believable and heartfelt passages in the whole book.
Anyone else feel this way?
P.S. The passage where Vittoria remembers rolling down fields full of Edelweiss made me fall off my chair laughing.
Sorry about the misspellings. Damn autocorrect on the iPhone...
Does this blog still function,
I stumbled upon it because I have to write a reference paper about Angels and Demons. Every error that has been posted about the places has been useful, but I have to ask does the "Path of Illumintaion" still function in the same way? Because surely if the statues and squares are in the wrong place, then Milton`s verses:
From Santi’s earthly tomb with demon’s hole,
‘Cross Rome the mystic elements unfold.
The path of light is laid, the sacred test,
Let angels guide you on your lofty quest. -John Milton
don`t lead you on the path of illumination. Or do they? Can someone help?
I'm fairly certain that "Milton's verses" aren't actually Milton's work at all (they don't appear in any of his major poems) but rather Brown's invention. The verses are rather clunky, so I'd be surprised to learn they were in fact Milton.
So whether that Path of Illumination still works in the same way is beside the point. If it's all Brown's invention (as it seems to be), one you remove one foundation stone, it all comes tumbling down.
You yourself are inaccurate in many aspects.
Cell phones that you are supposed to be using in order to meet your daily communication needs may not shout out dial tones at you ... but some selected sets HAVE got dial tones ... and i as a 16year old am just giving you informations that you ought to be knowing more about.
Yoga WAS, among others, Buddhist in origin.
Try putting those ACCURATE INFO in the story and it sure will ruin the thrill ... unless one of your very few unproductive professions include criticising those gaining popularity ... Try proving einstein wrong ... i assure you, you'll be able to find mistakes if you research for decades, and i'm damn sure you can't carry that out ...
P.S.: that was just pointing out few of your mistakes ... will come back later and read the whole thing ... :P ... have better things to do (exams are approaching)
Durjoy Biswas
Class X
Kolkata, India
ITS JUST A FICTION BOOK!!!!!!!
i know his features r completely wrong....but look at the brains he's used!!!!the cross,the plot and everything!!look at it in the positive way!!i totally love it!dan brown is 1 of the most brainy authors and he ROX!!
Exactly - It is a story, not a historical treatise - So many criticize the book and yet they paid $$$ to read it. Dan is laughing all the way to the bank - lol- have fun with it all and you are right. Dan Brown is a brainy author indeed!
Nitpickers bring progress to the world...careless oafs who whine that pretentious,ignorant authors should escape criticism for their pretentiousness or ignorance are the ones who should "get a life".
No one here (though it's been noted elsewhere) seems to have brought up that Brown's book cites,by name,John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis as the document defining rules for papal conclaves,and has a supposed expert assert that an election of a Pope by acclamation has taken place...yet that document explicitly,by name,declares that practice abolished and excluded from effect.(See Section 62 of UDG).
I think that even though Dan Brown may have errors for different references it should not be criticized because he makes up for it in his book. The novel is thrilling with loads of action and a ton of suspense that captivates a readers mind. If you were able to expand your imagination to that of an 8 year old you would still be able to find this novel exciting. However, if you can only think about the accuracy of the locations and whatever such info. you were bound to disappoint yourselves from the beginning. He visited and studied Rome for what... approx. a year and you expect every reference in his story to be completely accurate. Sorry to disappoint but seeing how he is not even from there that idea is not only inconceivable but it is also disrespectful.
Oh for Christ's sake ladies, stop it.
Okay maybe he made a lot of mistakes, but the basic information is all right. Stop judging him. He's not a fraud. I can't call you fraud because you make a lot of mistakes. I would call you humans.
Also, the one posted this is an asshole.
SO SHUT UP.
I understand that the book is not completely factual, but why do people have to be so negative. Read the books, enjoy them. Pointing out every little mistake in a novel just seems naive.
I believe you were right about the 'shaitan' mistake because I sensed it too while reading the book.
"It's Islamic. It means adversary - God’sadversary.'' This much is right.
''The church chose Islam for the name because it was a language they considered dirty." Now that's where it's wrong. Instead of language he should have used religion.
Omg. losers!! I was going for a brief google to check up on some of DBs claims on antimatter after just reading A&D (took 3 days) and I find this blog thing...anyone would think DB was some kind of terrorist with alllll this criticism. It's fiction! You have to be able to suspend belief at times throughout the plot but this is integral
To all good action stories-James Bond, Indiana Jones etc. and when I read through your corrections I see you have been so pedantic! Seriously, reflect on how many people read his work and how many will read yours...instead of producing something of your own with all the time spent on these corrections you waste your energy on your jealousy of his success.
I read one of his books and was irritated by all the twists and turns he took with the few facts that were actually in there. The movies were far worse but I think nowadays people sort of expect lies to be in movies. It's unfortunate that fiction is sometimes presented as fact.
The correct spelling is Alfa Romeo and not Alpha Romeo. Mistakes galore Mr Brown!
that is why I never managed to read the book. After 100 pages, I could not anymore and gave up. Such an amount of stupidity is too much!
I am reading this book if I don't know if burn it or finish it. It is so much no sense...
I wonder, Shaitan, obviously 'borrowed' from the way earlier Hebrew scriptures ...... Satan = Shaitan ....... just the pronunciation is Arabic........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
:-)
urdu novels pdf download
ebook pdf free download novel
hikmat books in urdu free download
free books download pdf
islamic urdu books pdf
urdu books pdf download
books pdf download free
ebooks pdf free download
free ebooks download
books pdf download
pdfbooksfree
the librarypk
Kitaabghar
read ebook pdf
Paulo Coelho books pdf
The 5am Club by Robin Sharma pdf free download
[url=https://vk.cc/aA09Hy][img]https://i.ibb.co/WvH0KTN/5-C6-C8-C3-A-B3-FD-478-B-B767-C5140-F6-FFC09.jpg[/img][/url]
Мы с моим другом Эдуардом Лером нашли секретную лазейку к постоянному потоку денег из интернета,
https://vk.cc/aA09Hy
Но не все оказалось так просто нужно было все сделать по человечески что бы было просто и понятно тебе...
И чтобы тебе было еще интереснее - я объявляю временную акцию и дарю тебе "Яндекс.Директ под Ключ" и еще до 8 ценных Подарков и Бонусов.
Забирай быстрее Подарки, пока мы не закрыли Акцию!
https://vk.cc/aA09Hy
https://vk.cc/aA09Hy
https://vk.cc/aA09Hy
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home