I’d separate those two. The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality; it’s a fictional novel. You might not like it as a piece of high art, but most of us understand the difference between art and pop literature. Heck, most of us consume and like “guilty pleasure” media, I actually rather enjoyed Angels & Demons by the same author.

Malcolm Gladwell is purporting to communicate factual reality. If he discards good arguments and evidence to entertain, then he is doing a real measurable harm in a way that Dan Brown is not.

> The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality

It was published with a preface titled "FACT" claiming that all the secret societies and rituals and documents in the novel were historically accurate. That was the book's whole schtick.

Eh, lots of books use the whole “this is totally the secret history of …” as a gimmick; they’re still sold in the fiction section.

There was no "..wink, wink" to the da vinci code.

The author specifically claimed that certain parts of the book - he listed exactly which parts - were documented historical truth. Isn't that "purporting to communicate factual reality"?

If some people thought that a fictional book sold as such contained true things, then they are gullible fools likely to fall for anything. I wouldn’t read too much into that.

You're welcome to think so, but that doesn't change the fact that Dan Brown was unambiguously purporting to communicate factual reality.

More so that Gladwell, in fact - I don't think any of Gladwell's books ever had a "the following parts of this book are historical fact" preface! (though a few of them could arguably have used one...)

But sill, a lot of people there is some kind of truth on them.

Some people are fools.

Why would they? This person is claiming to be a metaexpert relaying what experts are saying. If somone doesn't have research skills or even know the structure of academia then they're probably very used to having to trust people. I'm wondering if they even have the skills to check anything if they wanted to: somone tried to support a bullshit etymology for an Arabic word by citing some pseudoscience website to me. That to them is just as credible as wiktionary or anything else.