Wednesday 16 September 2009

How Did You Find Dan Brown's Lost Symbol?






Another mega-seller from Dan Brown raises an important question. How do you decide what is Fact and what is Fiction?


I forget who said it but, human beings are curious (perhaps not enough!) because they can believe things that aren't true and disbelieve things that are true. Dan Brown skillfully taps into his habit of ours.

Basically when reading any of Dan Brown's books, The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Daemons and now The Lost Symbol, he is challenging us to sort out fact from fiction. Or is he? What if he is simply writing a good story that stimulates our imagination to see patterns and make connections that are in no way connected to the truth?

When you read the The Lost Symbol which bits do you choose to believe and which bits to reject? On what basis do you this? What evidence are you willing to trust? Is it the word of someone else? How do you choose between person 'A's word and person 'B's word? Is it seeing, hearing of some other sensory input? Do rely on a memory of some perviously related facts? Do you work it in your mind and if it stacks up you go with that?

So here we have a problem. We might believe Dan Brown's story The Lost Symbol but can we really know the facts?

I can't wait for the sequel, I remember hearing a famous author saying that given the facts so far it is a logical move for Dan Brown to follow The Lost Symbol with The Lost Marble.

Beware of people who claim to have all the answers! and this includes a like


Lost Symbol Fan? check out The Lost Symbol

2 comments:

  1. Lost symbol was Dan Browns worst book ever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having endured all the blatant innaccuracies of Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci code I will not read any more of the moronic drivel written by this author. A non and priest goven permission to have a child by AI? The Catholic Church totally bans AI. Popes being buries in open coffins? Popes are burie in triple coffins, the innermost of which is lead soldered shut. All huis "facts" are spurious to an idiotic extent.

    ReplyDelete