The Da Vinci Code

Poor old Dan Brown. He does get a bit of stick. They say he writes silly, brainless stories told in a way appropriate for telling silly, brainless stories. With three thousand or so plot twists. In fact, my friends say, one cannot even call Dan Brown's novels stories - they're just collections of plot twists. By the end it really gets (unintentionally) hilarious - one twist and then another and another AND ANOTHER AND ANOTHER!!!, and you feel like a cat trapped in a washing machine. But fortunately unlike the cat you have the power to stop the ludicrous infantile spinning and just drop the book.

A lot of it's deserved. His writing, especially in “The Da Vinci Code” and - even more - “The Lost Symbol”, is atrocious. The second show more sentence of the latter is something like (this is from memory) "The 34-year-old cult initiate lifted the bowl of blood-red wine to his lips," which I'm not even going to start on because we'd be here all day. And, of course, he seems to research his books by spending ten minutes looking up conspiracy theories on Google. I enjoyed “The Da Vinci Code” mainly by supposing it to be set in some kind of parallel universe where serious scholars of church history really do think that Jesus begat the Merovingian dynasty (or whatever it was). Brown mistakes conspiracy nonsense for genuine academic work, which is a pretty massive mistake to make. But - but! - all of the fashionable Dan Brown bashing, while undeniably deserved, overlooks what's great about his work. The fact is that the man knows how to tell a story. “The Da Vinci Code” became a phenomenon because, for all the dreadful wordsmithing and worse research, it's a brilliant story told brilliantly. It captivates from the first chapter and holds you all the way through. And a thriller of this kind is not easy to write. In fact, it's very, very hard to do it well. Dan Brown does it very, very well, and his success reflects that.

I read one of his earlier books, “Deception Point”, a little while ago - it was published to moderate success before he hit the real big time. And not only is it (again) a very well plotted thriller, but it's considerably better written than his later, better-known books - it ain't great literature but the prose is perfectly serviceable. Yes, Dan Brown can actually write, when he makes the effort.

So, yes, he's no Dante. Yes, he is in some ways dreadful. And, yes, you'd probably be better off reading Dante than Dan if you have to choose (and I say that as someone who, alas, has read Dante several times). But why choose? There's room in the world for both, and if you're one of those who don't enjoy Dan, lay off him a bit. There are worse people in the world. show less

This is the worst drivel I have ever read. The author seems to know nothing about European geography or politics. His plot is ripped off from the delusions of someone else. Every time he throws in some little fact or snippet, it is wrong. Guaranteed wrong! He repeats urban legends without so much as a google search to verify their veracity, and tries to sell the grand plot as though there might be some truth in it!

The author clearly sees himself in the role of the protaganist. He wants to think of himself as an academic, and his book as some kind of thesis. But the truth is that with the lack of critical thinking presented to us in this novel, Brown would not find himself so much as portering job in any respectable academic show more institution.

Controversy sells. I read this book because someone said "with all the fuss about it there must be something in it". This book demonstrates ably the fallacy of that way of thinking. Despite all the fuss about this book, it really has no merit whatsoever. Possibly the worst book I ever read. show less

While in Paris for a conference, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon gets caught up into a murder investigation with symbolic meaning. The Louvre’s director has died, leaving behind cryptic clues about the motive for his murder. The victim intends for Langdon to solve the clues, but instead they implicate him. It’s doubly imperative for Langdon to unravel the mystery in order to prove his innocence.

This book created a sensation upon its publication a couple of decades ago because the plot weaves in unorthodox theories of Christianity. The controversy probably generated more readers than it deserved on its merits as a thriller. I didn’t have any trouble deciphering most of the puzzles, so it seemed like I was constantly waiting for show more the “expert” characters to catch up. There are better thrillers, and there are better sources than a novel for learning about Christian history from both an orthodox and an unorthodox perspective. show less

I remember a time when this book was the absolute talk of the town and I wondered what was so revolutionary about it that it had people split into camps either rejecting or embracing its ideas. I haven't even heard of Dan Brown back then and only became interested enough in his work to wishlist the book on PaperBackSwap after watching the movie by the same name with Tom Hanks playing Robert Langdon. When it arrived it was no mere mass market paperback. It was an illustrated special edition hardcover with glossy pages and color pictures of the things and places described in the book. It was fascinating. It was like reading a history book that actually did something other than bore me to the point of stupidity. I blew through the thick show more volume in no time at all, immediately wishlisted the other books by Dan Brown and went back to savor the illustrations one more time - I have to admit, they added to the experience.
One thing about Brown's Langdon and the rest is that they are likable. Even the villains are sympathetic because they are misguided in one way or another but for the most part they are motivated by faith or thirst for knowledge as opposed to greed or prestige. I actually felt sorry for Silas, the albino priest, because he really believed that he was doing God's work and suffered for it.
What wasn't very apparent when I first read the book but is more so now that I've read two more by Brown is that strong female leads are a staple in his novels. While Langdon is the fount of knowledge who comes up with ideas as for the location of the subject of their search and can gain access to otherwise off-limit places because of his renown it is the women who protect the professor and figure out the logistics of getting him out of jams. Sophie Neveu is no exception and it was great fun reading about a woman with such an unusual profession and life.
Pacing in this book is characteristic of other Brown's work - Langdon and Neveu are always on the go in their mad race against time and the police and that's a lot of action even for a hefty volume such as this. It sucks you in and I haven't met a person yet who hasn't been reading faster than usual to get to the bottom of the mystery, impatient to find the characters at their destination. Because of this there isn't too much character development but we do get a sense of who these people are when the events happen, what motivates them and what their backgrounds are, which is more than adequate for an action thriller.
The only thing that slowed down the story were the explanations connecting the pieces of the puzzle into one whole. While necessary, they sometimes went on for too long and kept me from finding out the location of the Holy Grail and I was really tempted to skip over those passages but read on because I didn't want to miss anything important.
As far as the controversial subject goes I really didn't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, it is a very non-traditional take on Jesus and his disciples and it is very convincingly written but this is a novel and anyone who starts taking it particularly close to heart should remember that a novel is by definition fiction, make-believe if you will, and has no claim on historical accuracy. Its purpose is entertainment and here it is masterfully fulfilled. Thumbs up to Dan Brown for writing a book I couldn't put down. show less

Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbologist of a pedantic turn of mind, and Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist trained by a master of an ancient secret society, come together as they flee the police in an attempt to solve the bizarre mystery of her grandfather's murder. They become entangled in an intricate web of pagan religions, artwork and the Holy Grail with both the police and a fanatical branch of the Catholic Church determined to stop them.

While it is true that the writing is facile at best, the chapters too short, and the cliffhanger and the infodump egregiously overused, this is a book meant to be devoured, not savored. The story is compelling, and the writing (though hardly masterful) is well enough suited to a thriller. If one gives show more Brown no other concession, one must admit that he has crafted quite a page-turner.

That admitted, however: Langdon is a veritable fount of knowledge about everything (no, really, everything). With him around who needs Google? Or an encyclopedia? I found Brown a tad irritating in his assumption that the reader could draw no inferences and was incapable of remembering symbolism explained a mere five pages earlier, not to mention his constantly referring to the etymology of words in a manner utterly unnecessary to the plot.

As always Brown's climactic scenes are lacking. While the reader has already come to the conclusion/solution of the puzzle, the 'specialists' remain annoyingly stupid and ignorant for pages.

Some observations:
-I really wish Brown had left the romantic bit between the protagonists out. It didn't work very well, and it barely gets face time, anyway.

-I very much take issue with the claim that 'corporal mortification' is a 'sacred practice'

-I was immensely irritated with his stereotypical and contemptuous assessment of France as well as his showing off his (poor) French in phrases that should have been left in English. Seriously, 'le suicide professionel'?

- There is NO bar soap in the Louvre

-I find it a little silly that a 22 year old FRENCH woman would completely break off all contact because she saw her grandfather having sex (even if it was weird). She's 22. It's a very permissive culture. It's not like she's from Utah...

-Langdon has to explain a COMMON architectural term, a FRENCH architectural term, to Sophie, who IS French, yet, for some reason, decides to translate it into ENGLISH to try to make sense out of it?

- The dossiers secrets are hardly incontrovertible, they're not even verifiable

- The Nicean creed does NOT establish only Jesus' divinity. The whole point was that they decided he was BOTH human and divine. To proclaim him solely one or the other would be heretical. Having a child would not have undermined the Church in that way, but strengthened it. (The political ramifications, however, would have been considerable...)

-As for 'la lingua pura', if the purpose was to remove a language from Latin roots, why ENGLISH? It has large quantities of Latin and French derived words (ask SAT studying people). Certainly it would not be the only (nor the best) choice: German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, etc.

-Horns mean you've been cuckolded. In pictures, people who hold up fingers are NOT 'advertising the victim's impressive sperm count' they're implying that your wife is unfaithful to you. show less

No matter how bad you have heard this book is, it is worse. You cannot actually believe it until you read it. In the spirit of inquiry, I braced myself to do just that.

My husband possibly enjoyed my reading of this book more than I did, because I was soon talking back to it, particularly when the Incredibly Indecipherable Riddles started showing up. "Sofia! Alexander Pope! Apple!" I shouted, and then in each case had to slog through forty pages before the Stunningly Brilliant hero and heroine figured it out ("APPLE, morons!").

This book was mind-bogglingly stupid. I had expected it to be silly and fluffy, but the scope of idiocy evident in both the writing and in the assumed audience was far more than I was ready for. Brown is show more blatantly, openly writing for people who don't know who Mitterrand is, or I.M. Pei, or Saint Paul, or what the Louvre pyramid looks like, or that Leonardo da Vinci wrote in mirror image -- in one scene, I kid you not, two da Vinci scholars faced with the mirror image writing can't figure out what it is. Perhaps the Harvard professor hero has been too busy cultivating the perfect "stubble lining his strong jaw and dimpled chin", or practicing his "chocolatey voice", to, y'know, actually learn anything about his chosen field.

For purposes of exposition, people -- actually just the heroine -- often express ignorance about incredibly basic aspects of the Grail legend, or church history, or basically anything that anyone who's ever seen "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" would know. The heroine is nothing but an audience for the male characters' explanations, and she cries a lot. Also she is a young hot brilliant cryptographer. Who can't figure out these incredibly stupid riddles. Yeah. And the villains are crippled and albino, while the Good Guys are hunky.

It is asinine. It is unintentionally hilarious on every page. I live for the day when it gets bumped off the top slot in my librarything. No, I can't get rid of my copy - have you tried to give a copy to a used bookstore lately? And besides, I keep having to lend it out to people who won't believe me when I say just how bad it is. show less

Book Circle Reads 11

Rating: 3 stars of five

The Book Description: An ingenious code hidden in the works of Leonardo da Vinci. A desperate race through the cathedrals and castles of Europe. An astonishing truth concealed for centuries . . . unveiled at last.

While in Paris, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is awakened by a phone call in the dead of the night. The elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum, his body covered in baffling symbols. As Langdon and gifted French cryptologist Sophie Neveu sort through the bizarre riddles, they are stunned to discover a trail of clues hidden in the works of Leonardo da Vinci—clues visible for all to see and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter.

Even more startling, show more the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion—a secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci—and he guarded a breathtaking historical secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle—while avoiding the faceless adversary who shadows their every move—the explosive, ancient truth will be lost forever.

My Review: Not one word. I mean it. Not ONE WORD of criticism for this book's three-star rating. It is not Literature, it is not even particularly well-written farb, but it is undeniably a page-turning rip-snorting adventure story that pokes fun at christian religion. Therefore it is A-Okay with me.

Snobs: It's not about you. It's about normal people getting their entertainment from a book for once, instead of a TV or a gaming console. Why are you bitching? Who said you had to read it?

Lovers: It's not about how much you love it. I didn't love it. I read the whole thing in a sitting and I wasn't about to get up until it was done, and that's saying a lot for someone whose life list of books read includes the snooty people's snootiest books. So yeah, three-star review is a huge vote of confidence from this source.

Religious christians: What in the hell are you doing reading my reviews?! Are you daft? I won't be saying anything nice about your imaginary friend any time soon. Pass on!

Environmentalists: Yes, the entirety of Siberia was deforested to print the book in its zillions. I feel bad about that too. Tell you what: Get out there and make hemp paper (better for the environment, plus a smokeable side product!) on a commercial scale. Books will go down in price, forests will be saved, and the mellow quotient of the world will go up. Win-win-win!

Normal people: You've all read the book by now, right? If not, go to a used bookstore (Brown's rich enough) and pick a few up. It's a lot of fun. show less