Is Dan Brown a fool or a con man?

[chani]

I'm watching an English documentary full of british humour about the Da Vinci Code. The actor Tony Robinson is "on a mission" trying to find out clues about Brown's truth. It's quite entertaining because of Robinson's style. Brown refused to give him an interview btw.

I must say first that I didn't like The Da Vinci Code and I'm not going to see the movie starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

I didn't like that book mostly because, as I told Frances, I thought it isn't a good mystery novel. It's easy to read but not well written, it's a blatant lie easy to figure out and the characters are flat. Being a sucker for mysteries and crime novels I can see the difference between that poorly plot and what is written by good American authors. Besides there's nothing refreshing in DVC.

Brown only used old stuff  from previous novels (about The Grail meaning actually Sang Réal and Le Prieuré de Sion) and developed many unlikely connections that would have made Umberto Eco laugh his ass out (sorry Professore!). Besides as a Historian, there are a few things that pissed me off (about The Templars and medieval stuff), and I knew that the so-called secret society, le Prieuré de Sion, was completely made up by 3 French men in the 80's. As Robinson said, it's like The Monty Python! It was nothing but a con and a joke between friends. The problem is that Brown presented it as something historically accurate. And many readers believed him. As a History Teacher I'm bothered by that of course.

What happened then reminds me a lot of what Eco decribed in Foucault's Pendulum. Some people became convinced that the Prieuré was true and the fake sources made by our jokers were real!

The con worked in the 80's and a first book ensued (Holy Blood Holy Grail).

The question could be is Dan Brown some fool who bought the con and drew his inspiration from Baigent's book...genuinely, or did he knowingly dig this fake stuff out to make his own best-seller 20 years later? I don't think it matters actually. He stroke it lucky, good for him!

But as Robinson says at the end of the documentary, Dan Brown only did what many poor medieval authors used to do...Mankind changes and at the same time remains the same still.