Monday, January 03, 2005

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 it’s 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 one’s 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 - God’s 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 she’s underground. Cell phones never have dial tones.

- While pondering the removal of the Vatican Museum’s 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, it’s 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. It’s 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. Brown’s 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 it’s 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 it’s highly unlikely that it’s 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. Peter’s. Do you see 140 statues there? Then there’s the matter of the size of St. Peter’s. 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 don’t for this sort of thing). According to Brown, that would make St. Peter’s 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, he’s already mentioned the façade, and piazzas don’t 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 it’s 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 doesn’t mean they worshipped "all gods." Rather, they worshipped their particular set of gods, as Langdon suggests, contradicting the statement he’d 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, there’s 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 world’s 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. Peter’s (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 he’ll "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. Peter’s? 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 you’re 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 cross’s central arm passed directly through the center of the castle’s 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.

312 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 312 Newer› Newest»
At Jan 4, 2005 5:06:00 AM , Blogger Sharon said...

Conflating 'documents' and 'hearsay' is inexcusable, but I can't help thinking a parallel between documents and fossils does in fact work in several ways. I'm thinking particularly about a) survival: only a small portion of the written records of the past survives, often fortuitously and in fragmentary forms, although some environments may be more conducive to survival than others; and b) interpretation: no single document/fossil makes much sense on its own, it needs to be contextualised, compared and analysed; and there may be differing interpretations of what it means, even whether it's genuine and certainly how reliable it is as evidence. (I say this as one who spends a good deal of time tearing her hair out over legal records and how much of any of them you can believe.)

 
At Jan 4, 2005 7:22:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh good, I'm not the only one who's getting annoyed by this. You've got most of the ones that were niggling me (particularly the Aztecs and Ionic columns), but here's a few more:

1. When Vittoria's explaining antimatter, she says, "Everything has an opposite. Protons have electrons. Up-quarks have down-quarks." Both rubbish. An antiproton isn't an electron; it's... well, an antiproton. An antielectron is a positron. And up-quark and down-quarks aren't antimatter opposites either; they're just two of the six flavours of normal quarks, and their opposites are anti-up and anti-down.

2. At the end of Chapter 43 the camerlengo says that the Prayer of St Francis is the line, "God, give me strength to accept those things I cannot change." No it isn't. That's the Serenity Prayer. The Prayer of St Francis is the one that begins, "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love," and all the rest of it.

3. Why would a British reporter think in American slang? Apart from the occasional token bit of Cockney ("She was an odd bird") his reported thoughts are littered with Americanisms like "Hell no!", "anchor spot" and "I sure hope so".

 
At Jan 4, 2005 8:09:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

You've got a good point, Sharon. I think my biggest problem with Brown's analogy is the language he uses. I can see documents being the equivalent of fossils, but what the hell does it mean for documents to be the symbolic equivalent of fossils? What's symbolic about their similarity?

Thanks for your additions, Anonymous. I knew there was something screwy about Brown's discussion of antimatter, but I don't know enough about physics to be sure of exactly what was wrong. I'll be sure to add your corrections to my list.

 
At Jan 9, 2005 2:54:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is taking me a long time to read this book, as I am only reading it when I don't have anything else to read. There are so many mistakes and things that don't ring true that they just end up being hugely detracting.

Some mistakes are so blatant I almost think Brown does it deliberately.

Here's some:

In Chapter 9, "Langdon was certain Kohler would recognize the name [of Galileo]". Well, apart from the fact it's highly improbable that any professional physicist wouldn't be aware of Galileo, Langdon could be resonably certain Kohler would know the name as a few pages earlier in Chapter 7, Kohler had mentioned "men like Einstein, Galileo, and Newton".

Chapter 24: "The droplet appeared and disappeared in the robotic red blinking of a digitial LED" - well, it's not a mistake, although I've never seen an LED display that blinks. It's about 8 hours before the batteries run out, so there will be plenty of segments lit. (Admittedly, in Chapter 22, the digits are described as "blinking". That may be what Brown is trying to describe, but his descriptions are so sloppy, I'm inclined not to give him the benefit of the doubt".

Then on the next line: '"Can you lighten the contrast?" the commander asked, startling the technician' - presumably the technician was startled by his commanders poor grasp of vocabulary. You can increase the brightness; increase or decrease the contrast; or lighten the image. But lighten the contrast is nonsense.

Chapter 40: '"Did you trace the call?"... "No luck. Cellular with heavy encryption. The SAT lines are interfused, so triangulation is out. The IF signature suggests he's somewhere in Rome..."'. I think there maybe some technical issues to address here, but it is such total gibberish... I half-suspect he wrote this bit the day after watching a DVD of "Enemy of the State" or something and tried to remember some "good" words. Not sure what SAT is - maybe it is short for satellite - in which case it should be "sat-lines". (That's just correct punctuation - no techie knowledge required)

Chapter 41: "The central office of the BBC is in London just west of Piccadilly" - well, the BBC News Centre is at TV Centre, in West London - well away from the centre. Bush House, the original HQ of the BBC is in central London, but to the east of Picadilly Circus. Although if you want to place it geographically, you'd probably say it was just up the road from Trafalger Square.

"The switchboard phone rang" - What does this mean? Does it means the switchboard operator is putting a call through? (the editor is unlikely to be sitting at the BBC's main switchboard). Or does she have two phones on her desk - possible, but uncommon. Then she answers "BBC" - which implies she's answering a direct line, not a call forwarded from the switchboard.

Anyway, she stubs out her cigarette - which is good as the BBC, like virtually all big offices in the UK, bans smoking. And it's a Dunhill. Now Brown could have just said "cigarette". But he specifically adds the "Dunhill", which leaves me completely confused about what additional information he is trying to tell me about this character. I'd have expected her to have a quick gasp on a Marlboro Light or a Silk Cut (in the smoking room). Now this isn't strictly a mistake - it is possible she was smoking a Dunhill at the time - potentially she could have been smoking a Cuban cigar while wearing a ball gown - but if you want to create believable characters either the character conforms to type, or you expalin the discrepency - "she smoked Dunhill as a mark of individuality" or whatever.

Chapter 45: "they will have to be practically on top of the canister before they even detect any signal" - not a mistake, this is completely correct as the cannister is right next to a wireless camera transmitting a known, high frequency, relatively high powered signal which will mask anything from the cannister. Anyway, back to the plot - how on earth can these people locate the cannister?

 
At Jan 9, 2005 3:13:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

Thanks for the additions.

I didn't even try to catalog all the bits that don't ring true. But since you brought up the BBC reporters...

At some point Brown describes Chinita as "black, though she preferred African-American" (or something along those lines). Chinita, presumably, is British, though Brown never explicitly says so. But if she's British, she wouldn't self-identify as African-American, now would she?

 
At Jan 10, 2005 5:50:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

It does say her "mom [is] a Southern Baptist", so it appears she is American. Nothing wrong with an American working for the BBC - it could be a useful plot device: her less-than-British reaction may be useful at some point. But Brown constantly challenges our preconceptions, without any explanation and without any reason. The whole effect is just confusing.

I don't have a problem with the British characters talking in American prose - it's a reasonable convention for a mass-market US book - but I fell off my chair when I reached the phrase: "you're a few crumpets short of a proper tea". The sheer arrogance of Brown: rather than use a genuine British cliche or idiom, he just makes something up. This phrase is just laughable.

In Chapter 52, Marci is asked if they can transmit live. "1.537MHz". No idea what she means by that, but it's not enough bandwidth for broadcast-quality video. So I can't even work out if Brown intends her answer to be affirmative or negative.

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).

Macri can't transmit the first death until she gets "a fixed cell read" - although this makes no sense as she is trying to uplink to satellite, not a cellular network.

In Chapter 78, Glick relays his story to the Editor-in-Chief via a video technician. The Editor immediately decides to run it. (Consider this for a few seconds and you realise how farcical it is. This, remember, is the BBC which Macri told the reader a few chapters ago "carefully confirmed and checked" every story).

A few pages later, Macri cites "Article 12 of the Free Press Act". Why a person working for a British company in the juristriction of the Holy See would quote (what I believe is) an US law is beyond me. And would a professional videographer ever refer to a video tape as "film"?

 
At Jan 10, 2005 7:28:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The X-33 travels at Mach-15, "hurtling through space at... 11,000 miles per hour". 60,000ft is not "space" (it's only about 20% the way there) - and this altitude is far too low to achieve the speed mentioned. And 11,000mph at 60,000ft is actually over Mach-16 as the speed of sound decreases with altitude.

Then, when Langdon boards the helicopter at Rome airport: "the chopper churned in neutral": well helicopters don't have a "neutral" in the same way other vehicles do; although disconnecting the clutch between the engine and gearbox would have the same effect. But then on the next line, it mentions that the rotors are spinning. Then the pilot gets on board and "fired up the engines". Now I don't know about flying a helicopter, but I would guess the logical order is: pilot boards - fire up engines - engage clutch - rotors spin. Not in Brown's strange, temporally challenged universe.

In Chapter 41, Churchill is quoted talking about the "English Parliament", which ceased to exist in 1707. Churchill would have said "British Parliament".

Langdon mentions (Chapter 55) that Madonna never uses her surname, Ciccone. Although these days, she does increasingly use her surname "Ritchie". (OK, this is a pretty trivial and slightly debatable point.)

In Chapter 59, the Swiss Guard calibrate the sweepers for a "sub-three-ohm flux field": ohms cannot be a unit of magnetic flux. Often books and films will try to use some impressive-sounding psuedo-scientific babble for effect, but usually there is some semblence of possibility (think Back to the Future and one-point-twenty-one gigawatts). Dan Brown just appears to use random "good sounding" words.

 
At Jan 10, 2005 8:53:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is another macroscopical error, when Dan Brown speaks of Galileo (I'm quite sure the autor never read something serious aboute this scientist) and his theory of gravitational orbits (sorry for my bad english, I'm italian and my english is not so good as I would like) of planets: Brown stresses that for Galileo the orbits where elliptical but the Church wanted then round for perfection. This is nonsense. It'well known that Galileo was a ferocious defender of round orbits against the elliptical ones of Keplero (Galileo liked to think of himself as a philosopher and ermetist). The Church never entered into the discussion nor had a position. Galileo dismissed the elliptical orbit theory of Keplero as childish. You can check. This is just one on many errors I have found in your book. I have found terrible and numerous errors in the Da Vinci Code too. It seems to me that Dan Brown always writes about things he clearly doesn't know or understand. There is an error in your contestation too. The Preghiera Semplice (the Serenity Prayer) is not of San Francesco since it was composed in the 1912 in France and published for the first time on Osservatore Romano in 1916, during WWI. It'a common error, none the less an error.
Arjuna

 
At Jan 12, 2005 8:42:00 AM , Blogger c-mike-go said...

Just another couple of comments on the scene at Santa Maria del Popolo---I visited Rome last April to visit my daughter, and the piazza was our unofficial meeting place after her classes at Temple University's campus there. As soon as I read "at the base of a hill on the southeast corner of the Piazza", I began to read more critically, since-as you correctly state-it's on the northeast corner. Brown characterizes the steps to the church as curved--they're not (except at the very ends). Later, Langdon and Vittoria explore a "narrow alley" next to the church to seek another entrance--there is no alley; the right side of the church fronts onto the piazza. Brown refers to "the top of the church's rose window" (289). You're right--Santa Maria del Popolo has no rose window, but my guess is he means the round window above the entrance steps (visible in photos available on the web).

 
At Jan 13, 2005 11:38:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most glaring mistakes, from my point of view, refer to the bad science Brown so abundantly spreads out in A&D. Many of them go unnoticed, but to a person who is mildly science-literate watching both Vetras and Kohler rant about antimatter and how it PROVES God's creation is tantamount to what most people would experience when a character purported to be an English professor burps out something like "Well, when Dickens wrote Romeo and Juliet, which, as you know, is the story of a jealous Moor and his wife..." That's exactly how I felt as I read Angels & Dragons, especially the Kohler dialogs. I cringed at almost every paragraph.

I will try to explain the mistakes out of memory.

The Big Bang.

Concerning paternity of the theory, Brown has his facts more or less right. But just "more or less". A Belgian Catholic priest and scientist, Georges Lemaitre, was one of the forerunners of the Big Bang theory. He was not alone, though, as Brown implies. He had been preceded by a Russian mathematician, Alexander Friedmann, who showed in 1922 that Einstein's general relativity equations in the general case allowed for an expanding Universe. At the time Lemaitre put forward the theory (1927), it was a mere hypothesis, a derivation of the equations with no experimental backup. This, along with the traditional view of the Universe as static, worked against general acceptance of the Big Bang theory, NOT the religious consequences of the theory, as Brown states.

When Hubble explained the red-shift of distant galaxies in terms of the expanding Universe theory and when element synthesis was incorporated into the theory by Gamow and others (who made the prediction of residual radiation that Penzias and Wilson found experimentally years later), the theory started gaining wide acceptance in the scientific community, eventually debunking its rival, the Steady State theory. It is now virtually unchallenged.

Therefore, it is pure nonsense by Brown that reproducing the Big Bang in a lab --which by the way is impossible, more about this later-- would have a dramatic impact on our view of cosmology, at least at the Big Bang-Genesys vs. Steady State debate. This debate, as I said before, is long dead.

Furthermore, Brown mistakes a very common physical process, observed daily in every particle physics lab in the world --the creation of a matter-antimatter pair-- with the Big Bang. This is preposterous. The Big Bang by definition entails the creation of all matter, all energy, and all of the spacetime continuum in a giant, primordial explosion. There is no way to simulate this explosion because:

a) The explosion itself creates the known Universe TOGETHER with its space and time. It does not make sense to OBSERVE this process from outside, as by definition there is no outside in the Big Bang. Everything (matter, energy, space, time) is inside. This is a hard concept to grasp and it's also a loose way to put it, but it's true. The Universe by expanding creates its own space, there is no space outside. However, in Vetra's experiment, there is clearly space outside: OUR space.

b) The amount of energy required to simulate the conditions immediately after (10^-35 sec.) the Big Bang is huge to the point of being unachievable to both current and any foreseen technology. We are talking in excess of 100.000.000.000.000 degrees here. No accelerator on Earth can approximate those conditions, in which a high energy quark-lepton-photon "soup" would be the only thing in existence. No protons, no neutrons, evidently no atoms. During this time, the Universe would be "inflationary", expanding quickly and creating its own space as it did so(something not observed, of course, in Vetra's experiment).

Furthermore, Brown seems to think that the Big Bang is an immediate process that would create atoms of matter (and/or antimatter) in no time. Not so. Nuclear reactions --yes, there ARE nuclear reactions that create deuterium and helium nuclei out of protons, which make you wonder how the little fact that nuclaer fusion was occurring went unnoticed to Vetra and others in CERN-- would take three minutes to cease. Our Universe, furthermore, took 300.000 years to cool enough to form atoms. How did Vetra cool his personal Big Bang (hint: the Universe cools by expanding)?

http://www.astro.wesleyan.edu/~bill/courses/astr107/wes_only/Lectures/lecture30.htm

Finally, as Kohler correctly gasps, the Big Bang itself is a singularity (calling it THE singularity, as Kohler does in awe, is something a physicist accostumed to encountering MATHEMATICAL singularities everywhere in his equations would never do). We have no information about that singularity, and no hope of ever obtaining any information. For all we know, all of our laws fail at that point. That makes reproducing the Big Bang theoretically problematic, to say the least. How do you create something that you don't have any clue about?

Minor point that has already been noticed: it is impossible that scientists knew in 1917, as Brown states, about particle creation in the Big Bang.

Antimatter

But the worst part of all of this is that all of Brown's mumbo-jumbo about reproducing the Big Bang is UNNECESSARY. On the theoretical ground, because virtually all cosmologists agree that the Big Bang occurred, so no big surprise here and calling the Pope with the good news. The "good news" have been with us for at least 50 years. On the practical ground, the creation of antimatter does not need a Big Bang. As I said earlier, antimatter is created daily in particle labs. And in cosmic rays. And in a host of nuclear reactions... AND, most importantly, in what is called vacuum energy or zero-point energy, little reactions that occur all the time everywhere without us noticing (thanks to the oft mentioned and seldom understood Heisenberg principle, if you want to know).

Given this, there is no way that an experienced physicist like Max Kohler would be taken aback by antimatter creation. He would certainly be amazed at the AMOUNT of antimatter, about the fact --that Brown never mentions but is obviously the case-- that the antimatter is structured in atoms, and at the confinement technology, but that's it.

At some point in the novel, Brown says that Vetra, in his "Big Bang" experiment, wanted to create matter and was amazed when he got antimatter also. Preposterous. ANY first-year physics student knows that a photon (energy) can decay into a particle and its anti-particle, in matter and antimatter. That's in fact what zero-point energy processes are all about. And anyone knows about anhilation, the inverse process, which is observed daily and should not elicit such an awe-stricken reaction from Kohler when mentioned. Type "Feynman diagrams" in Google and count the number of references (there are about 96.000). Those diagrams describe the processes I have mentioned above (among many others). That's about how surprising Vetra's findings are to a physicist.

In his foreword, Brown talks about CERN being able to create antimatter for the first time recently. Mr. Brown simply does not know how to read. CERN announced that it had been able to create the first antimatter ATOM, specifically a hydrogen atom. NOT the first antimatter (which at a smaller scale, antiprotons and positrons and antineutrinos have been known for 70 years or so, positrons being the first in the early 1930's). That's about how sloppy Mr. Brown can get.

Of course, the novelty of Vetra's experiment is that the antimatter is obviously in chunks, probably in plasma form (although he attributes liquid features to it, even calling it "drop"). THAT would be an amazing feat, but somehow Brown fails to mention it. THAT would leave Kohler gasping. Not antimatter by itself. ORGANIZED and CONTAINED antimatter. But Brown never tells us which form his antimatter takes. He couldn't care less.

And, unfortunately, it's important... because containment depends critically on the state of the antimatter. For example, plasma is highly ionized (electrically charged), and in principle could be contained in a magnetic field. A gas, a solid or liquid would be more problematic. Every bit as problematic as containing, say, regular, material H2 --we must assume the antimatter is anti-hydrogen, the easiest atom to manufacture-- in a magnetic field, since antimatter has pretty much the same physical properties as its material counterpart (only with the charges reversed). In that respect, the quoted instability of antimatter is hogwash. Antimatter is as stable as matter. Except that when they BOTH come together, they anhilate each other; but that's a characteristic of BOTH in the presence of the counterpart.

Vittoria Vetra explains her containment technology as a revolutionary idea, leaving Kohler yet once more in wonder. Another big laugh. Magnetic "bottles" have been proposed --and, to a degree, used-- for plasma containment for years(in this case, MATERIAL plasma containment, but remember it's the same). It's simple. Antimatter is not the only thing that must be contained without touching anything. Hot plasma, as the one used for nuclear fusion, is so hot it cannot touch any solid material either. PLUS, the simpleminded magnetic bottle that Vittoria proposes, two opposing electromagnets, would never work. I need to read again the description, but it seemed to me in first reading that Brown thought two magnets would be necessary to form a bipole. That would also be an enormous mistake. Any magnet is a bipole by itself, every magnet has both North and South polarity.

The cheap theology.

Genesys "confirmed"? The Universe got a start, that's for sure. But wait. Does that CONFIRM the statement that an intelligent agent, aka GOD, created the Universe? NO WAY. For all we know, the Big Bang could have started by a spontaneous photon appear out of nowhere. Now, if you want to call a photon God, you are welcome to do so, but I would reserve such a big word for a higher entity than the energy particles now impacting my eyes from the screen.

Kohler's conversion --especially when he tells the "camarlengo" that Vetra PROVED God's existence-- is therefore unbelievable. No scientist would take the Big Bang as DEFINITE proof of Genesys. "Prove" is a very big word in science and is never used lightly. At any rate, he would have thought it out long before being confronted with the experiment, which, as I said, is unnecessary for theoretical purposes.

I already mentioned a very faulty idea of God that Brown explicitly states: his cheap, new-age equation "God = Energy". Nonsense. Physical energy is well understood. It is a PHYSICAL --i.e. natural, not supernatural-- quantity. It does not show structure. Obviously, it does not show thought, for which structure is probably needed. It does not show any supernatural properties. It does show some very down-to-earth properties, like being conserved. And to boot, it can be converted into matter. In fact, it is EQUIVALENT to matter. Is God equivalent to matter? Is He measurable? I didn't think so. No theologian would fall for this cheap hogwash.

Finally, Brown states that the creation of a matter/antimatter pair is tantamount to "creatio ex nihilo", creation from naught. Bullshit. Energy is not "naught". It is, as I just said, a very physical, very material, very MEASURABLE quantity. But still there is in Nature a "creatio ex nihilo" of sorts. Only it did not happen once at the Big Bang. It happens ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE: it is the creation of energy fluctuations in a vacuum, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is as unromantic as that: possibly the most common process in the Universe.

Mr. Brown, I don't mind photon torpedoes in Star Trek. I know the term is meaningless for the scriptwriter. But I do object to pretentious physics cum theology. Next time, document yourself. Or at the very least, don't use the word "FACT" so lightly.

P.S. Oh, and you are a terrible writer too. Almost forgot to say that.

 
At Jan 13, 2005 5:36:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

Florian Käferböck of Austria e-mailed me with these comments on Dan Brown's science:

Whatever Brown says about anti-matter, he gets it all wrong:

In the introduction of the book (I can't quote, I'm afraid, as I read the book in the German translation) he writes that anti-matter is the ideal source of energy, as it does not emit any kind of radiation.
This is, of course, absolute crap: When you bring together matter and anti-matter they annihilate and turn into pure energy, most of it in the gamma-ray area of the light spectrum.
When later in the book such an annihilation occurs, it causes an explosion of light - which is actually correct, although visible light is, as I said, only a fraction of what you get. Now what I'm asking is: What does Dan Brown think that visible light consists of, if not radiation? Jelly Beans?

Another thing is: When he explains the process of anti-matter generation he gets very hazy - probably in order to hide a big mistake (which I therefore think was intentional): When you create anti-matter and matter (you always get the same amount of both simultanously) you have to put in the same amount of energy that would be freed in the annihilation of the same quantity of anti-matter. This is what Einstein's famous law E=mc² says, in case you didn't know (if you did know, please don't take offence). The amount of energy (E) equals the amount off mass (m) multiplied with the square of light speed (c), which is a huge number. It isn't as if you you get matter from nothing - all paid for - nothing god-like at all.

One more thing that doesn't concern physics but translations:
The pledge on the Great Seal of the United States of America (you know, "novo ordo saeclorum") does NOT mean "new secular order" as claimed by Brown (or at least by his character Langdon). The common translation brought forth by conspiracion theorethics as "new world order" is wrong either! According to the Stowasser Latin Dictionary (the standard dictionary in use in Germany) "saecolum" means "age" or "lifetime" or "generation". No mention of secularity or world at all!
In fact the motto can be loosely translated as "a new order of the ages". And of course on top of the seal stand the words "annuit coeptis" meaning "he (meaning god) has favoured our undertakings", which doesn't sound very much like Illuminati.
There are a few more reasons to think that the Great Seal is an Illuminatic symbol - and of each of this reasons a perfect falsification. But I won't go into the details in this place. Most things of interest about the Seal can be found at: http://www.greatseal.com/

One last thing: My girlfriend who visited rome told me a very interesting fact: The fight scene at the Fountain of the Four Rivers could never happen in the described way - simply because the fountain isn't deep enough. It is little more than a single foot deep. Even if bound with chains it would be very hard to drown in there.

 
At Jan 14, 2005 5:21:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I forgot to add one of the most important criticisms to Brown's faulty physics, an error which Danny has fortunately corrected.

In effect, what Brown proposes is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. He seems to think that the energy produced by annihilation of matter and anti-matter is gratis. This is probably related with his misconception that matter and anti-matter are created "ex nihilo", out of nothing. Not so.

Matter/anti-matter pairs are created out of ENERGY, for example in the form of a photon which "splits" into one electron and one positron. As Danny correctly points out, the mass of these particles will be related to the original photonic energy by m = c^2 /E.

In the end, aside from minor fluctuations due to Heisenberg's principle (actually, its correlate in energy/time rather than position/momentum), energy has to be conserved. It follows that the initial energy E of the photon which originally split in an antimatter/matter pair will be equal to the energy E' resulting from the annihilation of the pair (the argument is the same if the positron resulting from the first pair is annihilated with a different electron, only a bit more involved). There is NO NET GAIN OF ENERGY, so the perpetuum mobile proposed by Brown is baloney, as any bright high school student would be able to tell him.

 
At Jan 14, 2005 5:37:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I see now that it's not Danny but Florian who made the conservation of energy remark. And I always forget to sign. The last two "anonymous" are by me, Luis.

Kind regards

 
At Jan 14, 2005 5:46:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a blunder! That's m = E / c^2

What a pity this tool doesn't allow editing...

Luis

 
At Jan 18, 2005 4:28:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can just about forgive Dan Brown for constantly distorting the facts badly to fit the plot (so that anti-matter becomes a big bomb etc...) - dispite Brown's disingeneous statements of "fact", it is still fiction. However, the holes in the plot and flawed logic are inexcusable.

For example, Brown is unable to distiguish between the narrator's and character's point of view. For example, Glick and Macri talk about the "Havard Guy" despite no evidence at this point that they know more about Langdon than just a mystery person on video; a few pages later, Langdon talks about the BBC reporter's opinion on CERN - despite running round Rome for the last hour, no where near a TV.

When Langdon finds the final brand, he overlooks the fact it was "in reverse... the brand's negative!". By any conventional definition, it is reversed (a mirror-image) but it is certainly not a negative (black is white and vice versa).

 
At Feb 1, 2005 11:05:00 AM , Blogger Boeciana said...

Just a wee point, but it irritated me more than the science things - did you notice Brown's bizarre use of 'canonised'? At one point a (living) priest is referred to as not even having been canonised yet, or something like that - Brown seems to be making a point about the chap's status, but really, what was he thinking? And where on earth was this man's editor?

 
At Feb 2, 2005 7:19:00 PM , Blogger Meredith said...

One of the biggest errors that leapt out at me had to do with Catholic moral teaching. The camerlengo is informed that he was actually conceived in vitro (or was it artificial insemination? I can't remember now, but neither option works), not by sexual intercourse, so he didn't have to kill the Pope. "It was all okay, see? The Pope and the nun didn't violate their vows of chastity! You were horribly mistaken!" Here's the problem: creating a child in vitro (or by any other means outside of natural intercourse) is prohibited by the Church. The Pope would still be comitting a mortal sin, and the zealous camerlengo would still feel justified in killing him. Dan Brown, if you're going pursue this weird animus against the RCC through every novel you write, you could at least familiarize yourself with a little basic doctrine. The kind of stuff I had straight by the time I was in junior high.

 
At Feb 4, 2005 4:55:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good collection of mistakes.

About Brown's confusion of the word "Islamic" with "Arabic":

He also says that the "hassassin" counts "in Islamic," which, as you've said, is not a language. In addition, if the guy is all anti-religion, it makes even less sense! Near the end, he says, "Ma'assalama" (not sure how Brown spells it) before he tries to kill either Langdon or the girl, can't rememember which right now. Sure, "ma'assalama" means "goodbye" - however, it also means "with peace"! Which is an idiotic thing to say before killing someone!

About the word "shaytan" (شيطان): So what if it's in the Qur'an? It's still ARABIC, not Islamic. It's simply the word "Satan" in Arabic. And by the way, the origins of the word predate the Qur'an; it comes from Hebrew (שָׂטָן). As everyone should know, the Torah came before the Qur'an. So the word isn't rooted in Islam, no matter what one may argue. If you're not Muslim and you speak Arabic, the word would be still be Shaytan (however you wish to transliterate it).

Anyway, that's all for now.

(Hopefully the Arabic and Hebrew text in my comment shows up.)

 
At Feb 4, 2005 4:57:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I made the comment above. I'm just adding that my name is Melinda. Sorry about that.

 
At Feb 4, 2005 5:00:00 AM , Blogger Danny said...

Thanks for the info, Melinda. I think I knew "Satan" came originally from Hebrew, but I had no clue at all how to get Hebrew or Arabic characters in html.

 
At Feb 5, 2005 7:21:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another example of the sloppy or misinformed writing (take your pick depending on how charitable you feel): On the FACT page, Brown start's off with "Switzerland's Conseil ... CERN ...'. Seeing as CERN is "the European Organization for Nuclear Research, the world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated on the border between France and Switzerland", I am puzzled by the use of "Switzerland's". Why not say "Europe's" instead. I know this is nitpicking, but it is irritating, on a par with the nonsense that communion was "borrowed" from the Aztecs.

 
At Feb 7, 2005 3:18:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

My copy of the Bible lists the name of Satan in the Book of Job, which would have been written before the Koran. My dictionary lists the derivation of "Satan" as coming from the Hebrew for "adversary". Since Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages it is not a surprise that the word would turn up in both languages.

 
At Feb 7, 2005 4:31:00 PM , Blogger Spenny said...

Yes, as a Brit, the blatant Americanisms grate intensely. As with many readers, it is not the fact that this ripping yarn is full of nonsense, it is the fact (to use that word again!!) that we are told, usually by Dan Brown, or Dan Brown's publisher, or Dan Brown's "award winning website" that he is factual, uses years of research and is highly educated. Claim it is a jolly romp, and I am relaxed, we can laugh together at his mistakes; claim this is great literature and I am in a state of perpetual irritation.

He shares a lot in common with the Tom Clancy franchise (though TC often does not write his own books) where he displays the unpleasant trait of being determined to show by clever asides that he knows things that other people don't. (For example, in one TC book, he spends half a chapter explaining how everyone knows that the best fish and chips are obtained from an English pub - clearly never having been in Britain and experienced a fish and chip shop, which still exist even with the onslaugh of kebabs, curries and chinese take-aways!).

The one example that irritated me in A & D was that he decided, being the hyper-intelligent being that he is, that he would make a rip-roaringly funny scientists joke. As we all know, scientists live on another planet and do not enjoy jokes about bottoms, breasts, bodily functions and so on, they all have to make clever intellectual comments. So "He can argue both sides of a Mobius strip". For me, I would have left it as that, you either get it or you don't. Not an earth-shatteringly funny or clever comment. But no, Dan knows that we are not as clever as he is, so he has to explain it, Mobius strips only have one side so he can't argue both sides can he? See, as soon as you explain it, as he does, it falls rather flat.

Of course, the really, really, really, annoying thing is that bloody camera. There it is beaming its signal. We are told of the sophistication of the Vatican's systems. It appears to have infinite battery power as there seems to be an implication that it is not plugged into the mains, it seems unlikely in retrospect that they would have wired up a circuit where the camera was placed, as they could just switch of a circuit at a time until the camera stopped transmitting (no, they only seem to switch off the electricity to reduce interference, if I paid enough attention). So let us give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it has a wopping great dilithium crystal power source and can beam its signal happily without a connection. Hmmm, but what is it that still troubles me? Ah, yes, it is the fact that there is a perfectly detectable transmission coming from it and any old bit of detection kit could have homed in on it in 5 minutes. Whichever way you look at it, it was totally traceable.

Come on! This is the absolute fundamental of the plot and within 30 seconds, it falls apart.

So I get irritated and engage a couple of brain cells. What's this about artificial insemination being OK? Try typing in "artificial insemination catholic" into Google. I skipped a couple of entries, so I had to put some effort into the research, the third entry came up with this:

http://www.loras.edu/~CatholicHE/Arch/Sexuality/AIH.html

Looks pretty authentic to me, though admittedly I haven't spent 2 years researching this book so I could be wrong.

Basically, DB could have spent 30 minutes on the phone to his local Catholic priest and got as definitive an answer.

Oh, and I've never heard a BBC cameraman called a videographer either.

...and if the one mile journey did take one minute in the taxi, as explicitly pointed out by DB, the taxi driver must have driven most of the journey at speeds of over 70mph, accounting for acceleration and deceleration. This seems highly unlikely, even for an Roman driver.

...and having been to Rome, have you been to any part of Rome in the evening where you could drive a van up, drag out a chained body, have a fight, fire a gun, drown someone (we seem to need to allow over a minute for our expert swimmer and his wonderful lung capacity), wander off dripping wet, and make your escape before midnight? The place is alive with people strolling about. Perhaps I am missing something?

 
At Feb 7, 2005 4:47:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

You're right about the sheer absurdity of the fight in Piazza Navona occurring without anyone noticing. Piazza Navona! At night! It's packed with people all the time.

More evidence that Dan Brown knowledge of Rome is a good deal less impressive than he thinks it is.

 
At Feb 8, 2005 4:10:00 AM , Blogger Spenny said...

Re: busy Rome: what makes this lack of consideration of crowds less forgivable, is that earlier in the book they consider it implausible that the Illuminati could get away with their plot so publicly. Indeed, the previous killings relied on closing off a church that would otherwise have people in it, and the murder in the Square (tramp and little girl) relied on being public too.

To continue the "FACT" statements, it is interesting to note that John Grisham, who writes a ripping yarn himself, was quite happy to state in The Last Juror that he had changed various laws of the time of the book to fit his plot. He managed to do three things that Dan Brown does not: write a consistent plot, make things up to make the plot work, and stated that it is made up (as opposed to making things up, saying they are true and still having a plot full of holes).

 
At Feb 9, 2005 1:26:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Spenny for pointing out the most obvious flaw in the plot -- that the wireless camera was beaming out a perfectly traceable signal. My other question is, how did that little portable camera tranmit through three stories of solid stone and earth?

BobN

 
At Feb 11, 2005 1:16:00 PM , Anonymous Lazarus said...

Who is the bigger loser/idiot, Dan Brown for writing these falicies, or you for finding them? Get a fucking life, man.

 
At Feb 11, 2005 1:22:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

I'm quite happy with life, thanks.

 
At Feb 12, 2005 7:46:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Lazarus, feeling the need to pointlessly insult a blogger you've never met? Talk about not having enough going on in your life...
-LG

 
At Feb 15, 2005 6:06:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ILLUMINATI was a philosophical order set up by Adam Weishaupt around 1776. They joined Masonic lodges to try and increase support for their Enlightenment, rationalist thought. However, they were removed in a series of edicts from 1784 to 1786. Weishaupt himself was evicted in 1785. See http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/Illuminati.html .

 
At Feb 19, 2005 1:33:00 PM , Blogger cumu said...

I feel people have been unfair to Lazarus. They haven't grasped the hilarious irony inherent in his pretending to join the "loser/idiot" fraternity by posting here. He makes his comedy intent very clear by misspelling "fallacies". If he hadn't given such clear clues that he's a comedy genius, he'd open himself up to charges of being a rude, ill-informed loser/idiot himself. So well done Lazarus!

 
At Feb 19, 2005 1:38:00 PM , Blogger cumu said...

And just to add to his ironic comedian credentials, Lazarus pretends to misunderstand the difference between "fallacies" and "factual errors"! The guy slays me!!

 
At Feb 19, 2005 1:59:00 PM , Blogger cumu said...

Sorry - I feel I should say something about Dan Brown here, rather than just slapping the wrist of a rather impolite "contributor". First up, how does it happen that Langdon, a Harvard professor with expertise in Renaissance symbology, isn't fluent in Italian? And how does Brown explain the fact that a Catholic priest like the Camerlengo would pray directly to the late Pope [and not to God], as he does before they lift the lid off the Pope's coffin? The simple answer to both these questions is that Mr. Brown hasn't done his research and doesn't deserve the world-wide praise and vast income he's received.

 
At Feb 19, 2005 2:08:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

it seems that most of the errors in angels and demons have been uncovered here- interested in making a list of the mistakes in da vinci code?

 
At Feb 20, 2005 1:43:00 AM , Blogger tommytuttle said...

Just one more point. Has anyone considered that it is somewhat odd that one would go to the trouble to televise the hidden explosive in the first place? The ease of tracing the location of the wireless camera signal hit me immediately. That's really stupid, and to what purpose?

But then I realized that Dan needed the "visual" for the suspense factor, anticipating, for example, when this thing goes to screenplay. A screenplay could simply cut to a visual of the clock on the bomb, but without those in the Vatican seeing the same thing, the suspense doesn't work. I couldn't think of a great way to get this visual into their hands that was undetectable either.

One might consider a visual feed from some other mirrored source, like a dummy bomb, time-synced to the real bomb, and then transmit the image of the mirrored dummy bomb via the net, for example. Tracing the transmission would only find the dummy bomb, and the Vatican people still get the visual. But that gets overly complicated, and is messy. Other ideas?

The bad science in A&D annoyed me no end, throughout, with all the 3-ohm mumbo jumbo, and Kohler's gee-whizing obvious nuclear physics stuff, and historical errors about Galileo, and on and on.

But I still enjoyed the book, and admire someone who can create such engaging works as A&D and D-code.

 
At Feb 21, 2005 3:54:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regards to flashback about the Holy Communion:

The roots of Communion/Last Super are actually borrowed from Mithraism, which in turn borrowed it from older religions. Mithraism was prevalent in Rome during the first century and many the elements of Christianity owe their roots to this religion, including halos (sun disks), worship on the day of the Sun (Sunday), Virgin birth, December 25th, and on and on.

 
At Feb 21, 2005 4:29:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Feb 21, 2005 4:33:00 PM , Blogger Danny said...

In regards to flashback about the Holy Communion:

The roots of Communion/Last Super are actually borrowed from Mithraism, which in turn borrowed it from older religions. Mithraism was prevalent in Rome during the first century and many the elements of Christianity owe their roots to this religion, including halos (sun disks), worship on the day of the Sun (Sunday), Virgin birth, December 25th, and on and on.
Are you sure about this? This sounds a bit like Dan Brown's hokum in The Da Vinci Code. Christianity was certainly syncretic in its early years, borrowing elements from other religions, but I'm not sure that all the ones you've listed came from Mithraism specifically. Could you provide a reference? Thanks.

 
At Feb 28, 2005 9:05:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole premise of using plastic magnets to slip the anti-matter container through the Vatican metal detectors is flawed, since metal detectors don't react to metals as such, but to magnetic fields (normally induced in metal objects by the alternating magnetic field of the detector). Unless they had been configured to ignore items that are already magnetic (which I fail to see any logical reason for), the magnetic fields of the container would have triggered the alarms immediately.

 
At Feb 28, 2005 10:17:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The author can't seem to make up his mind about what the anti-matter substance consists of. In chapter 21 it is made very clear that it's positrons only. In chapter 36 it is made very clear that it's anti-hydrogen (atoms made of positrons and anti-protons).

Let's go with Brown's first claim. Then a quarter-gram of positrons would consist of roughly 270 trillion trillion particles, with a total electric charge of over 40 million Coulombs. The electric field generated by such an enormous collection of charged particles would cause electric discharges from more than 200 miles away and easily incinerate a whole city just by being there.

But that's not the worst part. Not by far. As even highschool kids know, similarly charged particles will repel each other. Forcing 270 trillion trillion positrons into the size of a droplet (let's say a sphere with a diameter of about 1 cm -- the book is rather vague) would cost roughly 50 trillion times as much energy as you could get out of the anti-matter itself. Furthermore, it would take a force field stronger than anything envisioned in Star Trek (or any other science fiction series I'm familiar with) to keep the sample together. And if you released the particles, they would fly apart with enough force to blow up the Earth several times over.

 
At Mar 1, 2005 6:07:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Page references refer to the Corgi paperback edition of ”Angels and Demons”.

p.151: The ”eight-foot spear with razor-sharp scyte” carried by the Swiss Guard is ”rumored to have decapitated countless Muslim while defending the Christian crusaders in the fifteenth century”. The last crusade took place in the fourteenth century and the Swiss Guard, founded in 1515, was not involved.
p.194: ”Conclaves are held by candlelight.” Not true.
p. 254: Pantheon named as ”the oldest Catholic church in Rome”. Not true; the pagan temple became a church in AD 609, several other churches are older than that.
p.260: Pantheon is said to have ”one narrow entrance”. The entrance is about seven metres wide.
p.261: ”Piazza della Rotunda” should be Piazza della Rotonda and lies directly in front of Pantheon; the order of ”no closer than two blocks” becomes ridiculous. ”Piazza Sant’ Ignacio” should be Piazza Sant’Ignazio.
p. 263: There is no ”Piazza de la Concorde” in Rome. There is a Place de la Concorde in Paris, however.
p. 270: ”La Tazza di Oro’s outdoor café” does not exist, they serve their excellent espresso only indoors. And the correct spelling is Tazza d’Oro.
p.293: ”The alley on the right side of the church” is not an alley, but a wide road sweeping down from the Pincio. There is a wall on one side, the other side is the right side of the church.
p.294: ”They had as few entrances as possible”.Santa Maria del Popolo has three front doors and two side doors towards the so called alley. There are also one door on each side of the altar. Plus, maybe, the one that Brown says goes ”from the the base of the rear wall directly into the foundations of the church”.
p. 316: ”This is the first altar of science!” Bernini carved the Habbakuk and Angel statue 1656-61 and all the other sculptures mentioned as Illuminati pointers several years, even decades, earlier. The first pointer is the last one made!
p.318: ”nobody else had contributed artwork to this chapel!” Not true. Raphael designed and Lorenzetto executed the statue of Jonah, the bronze bas-relief is by Lorenzetto, and so is David, the companion piece to Bernini’s Habbakuk.
p.319: ”Who other than a famous Vatican artist would have the clout to put his artwork in specific Catholic chapels around Rome”? Brown is mixing cause and effect: Bernini acted on commissions from families owning the chapels: Chigi here, Cornari in Santa Maria della Vittoria etc.
p.329: ”because it’s outside the walled city, Roman officials for centuries have claimed it as a part of Rome.” The controversy in question can only have been present from 1871 (when the Italian forces entered Rome and the pope considered himself ”prisoner in the Vatican” ) to 1929 when the concordat between Italy and the Vatican defined the state borders – with Piazza San Pietro definitely inside the Vatican. ”For centuries” is pure nonsense.
p.330: The four stone disks surrounding the obelisk in Piazza San Pietro are not bas-reliefs, they are simply flat stones, parts of the compass rose araound the obelisk. They depict winds from north, south, east and west – and how Langton (p. 337) decides upon the West wind as the important one is unexplained: the angel in Santa Maria del Popolo can’t have pointed with that exactness.
p.334: ”Art historians knew the fountains marked the exact geometric focal points of Bernini’s elliptical piazza”. Not true: the focal points are marked by two red stone disks rougly halfway between the obelisk and the fountains. Standing on one of the disks you have the illusion that the nearest colonnade has only one row of columns instead of four.
p.369: ”Nobody is allowed down there”. Not true; tourist groups visit the necropolis almost every day of the year. Even I have been there.
p. 374: ”Bernini had carved dozens of fountains in Rome, most of them in front of churches.” The correct number is less than a dozen, most of them not in front of churches.
p. 375: ”The Ecstacy of St Teresa, shortly after its unveiling, had been moved from its original location inside the Vatican.” Downright lie. Bernini’s St Teresa was commissioned by Cardinal Federigo Cornaro for his sepulcral chapel in the left transept of Santa Maria della Vittoria – and include portraits of the donor and his family. St Teresa has never been inside the Vatican and was never rejected by Pope Urban VIII and banished to ”some obscure chapel across town” for the simple reason that Urban VIII died in 1644 and Bernini did the job in 1645-52.
p. 378: ”On top of each tomb, in full papal vestments, lay life-sized semblances of each Pope”. Very few of the tombs – mainly those from the Middle Ages – in the Vatican grottoes have sculptures of the Pope inside on their lids.
p.394: ”The church is on Piazza Barberini”. It’s not. It’s on Piazza San Bernardo, half a kilometer uphill från Piazza Barberini.
”Twenty years ago…city planners had removed the obelisk and replaced it with a small fountain called the Triton.” Nope. There has never been an obelisk in Piazza Barberini, the Triton fountain in the center is hardly a small one and has been in place since 1643. Since Bernini made it the claim that ”in Bernini’s day, Langdon now realized, Piazza Barberini had contained an obelisk!” is nonsense.
p. 440: ”Langdon flashed on Bernini’s statue of Triton… in the square outside this very church”. Cf above: wrong square. And here the Triton – correctly – is attributed to Bernini, not a small modern one. Did he forget what he just had written?
p. 441: ”According to the map, the spear was pointing west”. The arrow – not a spear – held by the angel is pointing more or less downward at Teresa’s midriff. Since the sculpture sits along the left side of the church wall, the arrow would be pointing to north/north west.
p. 451: ”The piazza was deserted”. With a lot of restaurants along the sides and three famous fountains in the middle, Piazza Navona simply can’t be deserted at 10.45 PM.
p. 454: ”The water was waist deep”. Well, not quite – and the statement is completely at odds with the underwater fight in the following pages, where Langdon ”swam across the bottom of the fountain”(p.463). The fountain, by the way, is from 1651. The dove at the top of the obelisk is the symbol of the Pamhilij family, from which Pope Innocent X came: he ordered the fountain.
p.468: ”All of Rome spread out before him”. Even at the top of the obelisk’s platform he would se no more than the houses surrounding the square, and definitely not either St. Peter’s, Santa Maria della Vittoria, Piazza del Popolo or Castel Sant’Angelo. It would also take quite an imagination to see the shape of the (modern) park surrounding Castel Sant’ Angelo as a pentagram.
p.470: ”Langdon had little doubt that the angel and surrounding pentagonal park were Bernini’s doing as well.” Well, they’re not. The park is modern, the angel is by a Dutchman called Pieter Antoon Verschaffelt and from 1752, a century after Bernini.
p. 471: ”Lungotere Angelo” doesn’t exist but ”lungotere” should possibly be Lungotevere, which means ”along the Tiber”. The street outside the castle is called Lungotevere Castello and nothing else.
p. 475. ”a giant spiral ramp that circled up inside the fort”. OK, but not built for the use of ”commanders on horseback” in a hurry. The ramp is almost 2000 years old and the castle once was the tomb of emperor Hadrian and his family. Art historian Langdon evidently has no idea about that.
p.478: ”He had heard of this tunnel many times”. Il Passetto is hardly a tunnel, but a covered gangway between Castel Sant’Angelo and the Vatican. The entrance at the castle side is from one of the bastions, not from the castle itself. I don’t know if the other entrance is from the Pope’s private library (p. 509), but it was certainly never a ”secret escape route”, being high on very visible pillars along the streets all the way. These days there are even guided tours along part of the Passetto.
p. 480: ”Bernini, as head architect of renovations here…”. He was never that.
p. 527: ”the select few clergy who had descended ofter the years…” As mentioned above there are daily guided tours to the Necropolis.
p. 557: If someone really would survive a drop from several thousand feet aided only with a windshield tarp and by sheer luck end up in the Tiber close to the Tiber island, he would first of all bang into the bottom (not very deep here) and die, no matter if the running water may be three times softer than still water. Secondly he would be swept downstream very rapidly, the current is strong on both sides of the island, and thus be impossible to reach in time for spectators on the shore. And thirdly he would be desperately sick after swallowing the almost deadly polluted water.
p. 558: ”Ever since the island had been used to quarantine the sick during the Roman plague of A.D. 1656, it had been thought to have mystic healing properties.” In fact those properties were supposed to be in full swing a thousand years before that; there was a hospital on the island already in 293 B.C.
p.593: Brown is the first to claim that the ”Devil’s Advocate”has anything to do with Papal elections, officially credited by the church to rely on divine inspiration. The Devil’s Advocate (the job is now abolished by Pope John Paul II) had to dig for dirt concerning people suggested for beatification and canonisation. Since Papal elections are made by secret voting it’s rather hard to see where in the process a Devil’s Advocate could come in and air his findings.


These are only remarks concerning Dan Brown’s treatment of a ”well researched” (The Poisoned Pen) and ”Michelin-perfect ” (Publishers weekly) Rome. I leave it to people with knowledge about antimatter, Vatican hierarchy, the Illuminati and other cornerstones to have a look at ”Angels and Demons” from their respective points of view.

 
At Mar 5, 2005 2:24:00 AM , Anonymous Shri said...

Well, lots of people have posted lots of errors in the book and I must say, the book read as fiction is good, but as "fact" (sorry gu