Intrusions of Reality
I don't usually read book reviews because likes are very subjective. What I like someone else might hate, and vice versa. Rave reviews on book covers don't influence me; reading the plot summary usually does. Even then, sometimes the idea in the plot sounds interesting, but the writer hashes it completely. One such book that comes to mind is The Last Mohican. I tried to read it ages ago, but I concur with Mark Twain's opinion of Cooper's poor writing skills. The movie with Daniel Day Lewis, however, was wonderful. If only Cooper had had half the writing skills of some modern day screenwriters! Yet, despite not paying attention to reviews, I am now going to review a book that left me very cold in its perception of modern day Spain.
When The Da Vinci Code came out, everyone was talking about what a great book it was. I succumbed and bought it, and liked it pretty much. Angels and Demons, however, wasn't as convincing. After that I didn't read any more of Dan Brown's books until now. One day last month we were in a department store and ended up in the book section. Since I was out of fresh books, I checked out the few books in English on sale. None of the plot summaries convinced me except the one for Origin. It seemed interesting. Though I wasn't so sure about the involvement of the Spanish Royal House in the story, I bought it.
I read to page 252, and I could read no more. I skipped and plunged into it at different points ahead. I found one area, where the king takes his young son to the Escorial to see the royal crypt. The list of kings whose names the prince sees are impressive to him, including those of Charles V and the Catholic Monarchs. Stop right there and laugh. One of the things a writer must do is convince the reader to suspend disbelief. To help in that, facts must be correct. The Escorial Monastery, with its royal tombs, was built by Phillip II, son of Charles I (V of the Holy Roman Empire). It is logical that he bring his father's body to be interred there. It would not have been logical to unearth his great grandparents' bodies from the final city they conquered to re-inter them in the Escorial. Uh uh, no no. The Catholic Monarchs are still in the Royal Chapel at Granada. No writer is taking them out of there.
My misgivings on involving a (very) fictitious portrayal of the royal house proved correct. There are thrillers that write about fictitious presidents of different countries. They are credible, because each new president is an unknown factor. While the institution itself must be correctly portrayed, any person within it is a believable variable. (And reality is sometimes stranger than fiction, observe the present United States.) However, an institution in which its members are lifetime members, and readily recognizable to all, has to be dealt with in a form that readers will be able to say, "Yeah, that could happen that way." A thriller based in England involving a Queen, cannot have that Queen be recognizably similar to the real one, yet be a person diametrically opposed to her in personality or motives. You keep comparing the reality you know with what you are reading, and you just don't believe what is on the page, which makes the rest of the plot suffer.
The bad guy in the story is also using the Palmarian Church as the fall guy for everything bad that happens in the book. I suppose the intent was to use an organization such as the Opus Dei as the villains, but, the Opus Dei being as rich and powerful as it is, even making up a similar, fictional organization might have left the author open to lawsuits. So, a cult church was chosen. The Palmarians do exist, in the town of Palmar de Troya, near Sevilla, but it has a declining membership and most people in Spain have never heard of them. Recently, one of its popes resigned to get married, and accused the church of being a money fraud scheme. And why do foreign writers get the hiccups over religion in today's Spain? If they were to stand on a street and do a survey on how many people went to Mass last Sunday, they would get a majority of negatives. They would get even more negatives if they asked most people's opinion of the Church and its hierarchy. Leave the Church out of it. Use your imaginations.
How about using the Carlistas? They showed up when, in 1830, after abolishing salic law, Fernando VII had a daughter, Isabel, who was proclaimed heir to the throne, leaving out the king's brother, Carlos. Since then, the Carlistas have even risen up against the established order at times, and tried to get their pretender on the throne. They still exist, as a traditionalist (read ultra-conservative, ultra-Catholic) political party, and have their own heir to the throne, Carlos Javier de Borbón-Parma, cousin to Holland's King William. Dan Brown could have invented a splinter of a splinter of the group, and changed the motives in the book accordingly.
In my opinion, Dan Brown was lazy with this book, using existing groups and people, changing them slightly, and hoping that people would suspend judgment, thinking that maybe not everyone would know much about Spanish life and culture. If he had done his research diligently, he could have found much to create his own villains, and leave the monarchy out of it. Use a beloved prime minister (that might be a stretch, but if imagination is wisely used, possible), or other public figure with some power, real or imagined behind-the-scenes, but plausible.
The problem is that outside Spain, few people really do know much about this country and its people. That stereotype that Franco spread in the sixties is still too much in people's minds when they think of Spain. Bulls, toreros, flamenco, sun, sand, Church, King. The sad part is that the author has been to Spain various times, even spending time in Asturias, and years later in Sevilla. Yet it seems he has always seen Spain through American eyes, skimming over the top, appreciating the past, but not delving deeply into the reality of its present. It's a shame. It could have been a good thriller.
When The Da Vinci Code came out, everyone was talking about what a great book it was. I succumbed and bought it, and liked it pretty much. Angels and Demons, however, wasn't as convincing. After that I didn't read any more of Dan Brown's books until now. One day last month we were in a department store and ended up in the book section. Since I was out of fresh books, I checked out the few books in English on sale. None of the plot summaries convinced me except the one for Origin. It seemed interesting. Though I wasn't so sure about the involvement of the Spanish Royal House in the story, I bought it.
I read to page 252, and I could read no more. I skipped and plunged into it at different points ahead. I found one area, where the king takes his young son to the Escorial to see the royal crypt. The list of kings whose names the prince sees are impressive to him, including those of Charles V and the Catholic Monarchs. Stop right there and laugh. One of the things a writer must do is convince the reader to suspend disbelief. To help in that, facts must be correct. The Escorial Monastery, with its royal tombs, was built by Phillip II, son of Charles I (V of the Holy Roman Empire). It is logical that he bring his father's body to be interred there. It would not have been logical to unearth his great grandparents' bodies from the final city they conquered to re-inter them in the Escorial. Uh uh, no no. The Catholic Monarchs are still in the Royal Chapel at Granada. No writer is taking them out of there.
My misgivings on involving a (very) fictitious portrayal of the royal house proved correct. There are thrillers that write about fictitious presidents of different countries. They are credible, because each new president is an unknown factor. While the institution itself must be correctly portrayed, any person within it is a believable variable. (And reality is sometimes stranger than fiction, observe the present United States.) However, an institution in which its members are lifetime members, and readily recognizable to all, has to be dealt with in a form that readers will be able to say, "Yeah, that could happen that way." A thriller based in England involving a Queen, cannot have that Queen be recognizably similar to the real one, yet be a person diametrically opposed to her in personality or motives. You keep comparing the reality you know with what you are reading, and you just don't believe what is on the page, which makes the rest of the plot suffer.
The bad guy in the story is also using the Palmarian Church as the fall guy for everything bad that happens in the book. I suppose the intent was to use an organization such as the Opus Dei as the villains, but, the Opus Dei being as rich and powerful as it is, even making up a similar, fictional organization might have left the author open to lawsuits. So, a cult church was chosen. The Palmarians do exist, in the town of Palmar de Troya, near Sevilla, but it has a declining membership and most people in Spain have never heard of them. Recently, one of its popes resigned to get married, and accused the church of being a money fraud scheme. And why do foreign writers get the hiccups over religion in today's Spain? If they were to stand on a street and do a survey on how many people went to Mass last Sunday, they would get a majority of negatives. They would get even more negatives if they asked most people's opinion of the Church and its hierarchy. Leave the Church out of it. Use your imaginations.
How about using the Carlistas? They showed up when, in 1830, after abolishing salic law, Fernando VII had a daughter, Isabel, who was proclaimed heir to the throne, leaving out the king's brother, Carlos. Since then, the Carlistas have even risen up against the established order at times, and tried to get their pretender on the throne. They still exist, as a traditionalist (read ultra-conservative, ultra-Catholic) political party, and have their own heir to the throne, Carlos Javier de Borbón-Parma, cousin to Holland's King William. Dan Brown could have invented a splinter of a splinter of the group, and changed the motives in the book accordingly.
In my opinion, Dan Brown was lazy with this book, using existing groups and people, changing them slightly, and hoping that people would suspend judgment, thinking that maybe not everyone would know much about Spanish life and culture. If he had done his research diligently, he could have found much to create his own villains, and leave the monarchy out of it. Use a beloved prime minister (that might be a stretch, but if imagination is wisely used, possible), or other public figure with some power, real or imagined behind-the-scenes, but plausible.
The problem is that outside Spain, few people really do know much about this country and its people. That stereotype that Franco spread in the sixties is still too much in people's minds when they think of Spain. Bulls, toreros, flamenco, sun, sand, Church, King. The sad part is that the author has been to Spain various times, even spending time in Asturias, and years later in Sevilla. Yet it seems he has always seen Spain through American eyes, skimming over the top, appreciating the past, but not delving deeply into the reality of its present. It's a shame. It could have been a good thriller.
As a writer I am happy that any writer can make good money. As a writer, I find Dan Brown a bad writer both in style and plotting.
ReplyDeleteThe plotting was awful in this book. The style was lazy. I think The Da Vinci Code was a fluke. It wasn't great, but it was readable.
DeleteI agree with you Maria !
ReplyDelete