Illuminatus! and other anti-Dan Brown books

[superluser]

My mother seems to have gotten into the Dan Brown books, and while I wholeheartedly approve of conspiracy fiction, I was hoping to encourage her to read some non-crappy authors.  To that end, I picked up a copy of the Illuminatus! trilogy, with the intention of reading it myself and then handing it over to her if it didn't have too much sex in it.  Which it has(*).

So I'm curious what the literati here read when they want to read conspiracy fiction, in the same genre as the Dan Brown stuff, but, y'know, good.  And not Dan Browned.

My go-to man for this would probably be Thomas Pynchon, but his stuff is very difficult to read compared to Dan Brown, and I'm sure she wouldn't enjoy it.  Does anyone know how John Le Carré compares to Dan Brown, other than much better?


(*) It's still not quite as bad as the Rendezvous with Rama sequels.  Illuminatus! was a walk in the park compared to reading about anal beads in my early teens, and how someone so obsessed with breasts can make them sound so un-erotic is still beyond me.

[Kafzeil]

Just been starting Illuminatus! now, and quite enjoying it.

While I can't think of any Brown-esque writers at the moment, I will say I couldn't read Da Vinci code for many reasons, but the breaking point was two things; the complete horseshit "Facts" on Leonardo himself, and the complete and utter ignorance of of theology. I never picked up the book again once  he started yammering on about Gnosticism. And don't get me started on the Comunion/Aztec thing.

[Gareeku]

...I actually quite enojyed the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Granted it was a while ago now since I've read them, but still.

Does this mean I'm going to get lynched?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Nope. Enjoyment and quality are two different things.


On the OP's subject, Isaac Asimov wrote a lot of sci fi, and a heck of a lot of textbooks - I think he calculated at one point he'd written 300 textbooks and 100 books, which is a heck of a lot by anyone's standards - but he also wrote a series of purloined letter type murder mysteries, entitled The Black Widow Mysteries - there's four or five books of short stories of them, as I recall. They may fit the bill.

Other than that, conspiracy theories aren't something I usually read, although I do like a good twisty self-referential mind-bending plot.

[Tapewolf]

Unfortunately I can't really think of anything I've read that's remotely similar to the Illuminatus! trilogy, for good or for ill.

[superluser]

While I can't think of any Brown-esque writers at the moment, I will say I couldn't read Da Vinci code for many reasons, but the breaking point was two things; the complete horseshit "Facts" on Leonardo himself, and the complete and utter ignorance of of theology. I never picked up the book again once  he started yammering on about Gnosticism. And don't get me started on the Comunion/Aztec thing.

I was hoping to find something the opposite of Dan Brown, so not being Brown-esque would be a benefit.  The Gnosticism crap I've come to accept is something that present-day authors revel in being wrong about.  Try to find a historically accurate depiction of the Carpocratians in a popular novel, for example.

...I actually quite enojyed the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Granted it was a while ago now since I've read them, but still.

I quite enjoyed The Da Vinci Code until they started talking about Mary Magdalene and I realized that the whole thing was a fanfic for The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which I had previously been exposed to (though I've never read it).

[Alondro]

...I actually quite enojyed the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Granted it was a while ago now since I've read them, but still.

Does this mean I'm going to get lynched?

Yes, I'm afraid it does.  Get the heretic!





(the Pope and his lightning wizard smite you!)    

[Kafzeil]

While I can't think of any Brown-esque writers at the moment, I will say I couldn't read Da Vinci code for many reasons, but the breaking point was two things; the complete horseshit "Facts" on Leonardo himself, and the complete and utter ignorance of of theology. I never picked up the book again once  he started yammering on about Gnosticism. And don't get me started on the Comunion/Aztec thing.

I was hoping to find something the opposite of Dan Brown, so not being Brown-esque would be a benefit.  The Gnosticism crap I've come to accept is something that present-day authors revel in being wrong about.  Try to find a historically accurate depiction of the Carpocratians in a popular novel, for example.
[/qoute]

For me it's mostly the fact the alleged expert gets so many of his details flat out wrong. Tom Clancy has the same problem.