posted
I went into the local bookstore today. Why won't the hype die down about this book? Why is it still in hardcover? Am I the only one who sees just a trashy action novel with moderately interesting subject matter? The writing, especially the dialogue was so bad I found it downright childish. There are no characters to speak of; everyone is simply Mr./Mrs. exposition. What massive failure of oversight lead to this being published? Has literacy degenerated to the level where this is considered something akin to literature? To me it was just five hours I'll never get back. Gah. I just needed to vent.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I haven't read it either - even though many of my uninformed friends tell me I'd like it. I seriously question how well they know me, especially from what I've heard of the book.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
1) It bashes the catholic church at a time when doing so is highly popular
2) Its a fast paced, easy read.
3) There are mysteries the reader can try to unravel while reading, that are explained within a relatively short period of time.
There are a few others, but those are the important ones. The book isn't BAD. If it wasn't massively popular, no one would be bashing it, they'd just remark that its an entertaining meatless summer beach book.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I checked it out from the library last year - mainly to see what all the hype was about - and read it in one day while I was home sick from work.
I agree. It was badly written and the big "controvery" wasn't.
I found it on the same level as serial fiction - Louis L'Amour or the Goosebumps series for children. Obviously he was aiming at the lowest common denominator.
I was glad I hadn't paid for the book.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read it on my mother's insistance, and also because without having read it I am not really at liberty to criticise. After reading the first page I actually asked my mother if I was understanding what she meant by it.
It's a badly written action fluff book with some interesting rarely mentioned in mainstream ideas taken from fact and elaborated, by how much, I'm not sure.
It's not literature by any stretch of the imagination. It's the equivalent of the King Arthur movie that recently came out. "The True Story", well sure it is interesting and perhaps closer to the truth than the more mythical ideas of King Arthur, but did Guenever really wear unusual leather underwear as normal clothes?
Shreads of truth are fun to play with, but they do not turn fluff into "the True Story" and something worthy of accolades and praise. The DaVinci Code is interesting fluff, nothing more.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I usually don't read anything that I see upfront at Borders unless someone I really trust reccomends it to me. I walk right past that section (usually into Scifi ).
I took a modern American lit class a few years ago, and most were bestsellers when they were written. I hated all but one. Since then, I rarely venture into the literature or fiction sections of bookstores, since I seem to have really strange or high standards for non-scifi.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listened to about 20% of the audio version and turned it off in disgust. Not only are the characters and dialogue horrible and empty but the writer frequently resorts to childish little gimmicks to keep you hooked, such as telling you that a character her past discovered something that toally changed her, only for the author to not mention what this information is.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it got popular by people reading it thinking it was... an intellectual book that they were smart for reading it. I don't know though, I could ask the same about Harry Potter, I don't like the books yet it got popular as well...
Frankly, I'm reading the book, I don't like the characters when speaking, it has so many of the old elements from Angels and Demons, it... isn't good no, but it provides a cheap amount of entertainment. ^_^
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay It won the pulitzer two years ago, was enormously popular, and is a lovely book.
However, the popularity still doesn't indicate whether or not it is a quality book. Sometimes the two qualities come together, but one is not always indicative of another.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read The DaVinci Code yet, and have no plans to do so. I did, however, read the book that came before it, Angels and Demons. I found it to be fast-paced and action packed... and pretty rubbish all the way through. It really read like a movie of the week or something starring Nicholas Cage.
Dan Brown seems to be following the Michael Chrichton "formula" for success. Take an interesting idea for a story, research it deeply and thouroughly, then populate the narrative with stock figures from prime time TV drama, mix in the blatantly subtle romantic subplot, escalate the pace of the action (which both of these authors do very well, I have to say) and then have the deus ex machina show up just in time to save the day.
People don't really want good books... they want to read the same thing again and again.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he *doesn't* research it thoroughly. Okay, maybe he does, but only to figure out where he can obscure actual fact and history. I read Angels and Demons, and man, it was horrible.
It was poorly-written, with nearly every chapter ending with "Ooooooh!! Look!! I've written a suspense-filled sentence that tells you what I just said in the paragraph above was not the case!! There's going to be SUSPENSE coming!! And maybe even DANGER!! Keep reading!!"
Not to mention that I was terribly disappointed with Dan Brown's tenuous grasp on history, especially Church history. About 50 pages in I started making notes in the margins, just in case someone asked for a specific reference. A few times I laughed out loud.
After I stopped trying to pretend it had any sort of connection with the real world, I felt much better. Then I ignored the poor prose, and actually managed to enjoy the end.
I may or may not spend money on Da Vinci Code. I have a feeling I'll just borrow it.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Dan Brown's potboilers is that they're so obviously written to be potential summer popcorn flick screenplays first, stories second.
Ever read Deception Point?
The characters in that story even spend some time considering what film stars they look like.
Beat for beat, line by line it feels like I'm reading the descriptions of shots that will be in a film.
It's very annoying.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved it. I thought it was a fun read, and did not feel the need to pick it apart.
However, I prefer Catherine Neville's novels, The Eight and The Magic Circle, which are a similar type. (history-mystery?)
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Angels and Demons, but it wasn't a great book that is for sure.
I like the fact that he challenges Church history, adn he raises some decent points, but I don't see it as anything resembling real history...nor does it have to be.
Remember, I am a Mason, so I KNOW how much of his books are crap.\\lol
posted
Angels and Demons, now that I can pick apart. It could have ended about 250 pages sooner than it did.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed them as cheap entertainment, but I also like that they got me interested in theological theories mentioned. Not that I took for granted anything Brown wrote about the different theories, but it got me to go and read other books about them.
*Goes back to 'The Dark Tower' books*
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Ottawa Citizen had a two-page article this morning about how cheesy and false DaVinci Code is. They called it The DaVinci Crock. I was quite amused.
posted
The main problem with the book is that it treats as real scholastic study what is not. First of all, there is no scholarly discipline called "Symbology." While it is a word in the English language, it does not mean what he makes it mean. The types of things he studies would be the domain of an art historian, and would be called iconography. Symbolism in art is a different concept than iconography and.... why am I arguing this? There is no such person as a Symbologist!
I like to rant about this book for the same reasons people rant about authors popularizing bad science - this is bad social science. He did NOT research art to write this book, if research means reading anything scholarly in a given discipline. He's giving people the idea that what he proposes has a credible foundation, and reasonably smart people who don't have a background in art (as we shouldn't expect most readers to) are getting very mistaken misconceptions about art.
The saddest part of this all is that it's now slated to become a "major motion picture" and I am about to lose all respect I had for Tom Hanks. And I really like Tom Hanks!
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main problem with this book is that virtually all of the "historical facts" behind it are totally bogus.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The main problem with this book is that virtually all of the "historical facts" behind it are totally bogus.
This is not true. To see why, apply this simple test.
1) Imagine that all the "historical facts" in the book are true. Does the book still suck? Yes. Why? Because of the awful, thudding plot, clumsy characterization, and inane dialogue.
2) Imagine that the characterization, dialogue, and plot are improved, but the "historical facts" remain false. Does it become an enjoyable speculative fiction novel? Yes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is not that the "historical facts" are bogus, but that some of them are only "theories" or "hypothesis" that Brown is putting out there as fact. At least that's how it seemed to me.
On an unrelated note, oooo, 999 posts. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my Tom, I was going to send you and Christy The Initiate Brother and A Gatherer of Clouds, but ATOG is only available in used copies for a minimm of 18 bucks! WTF!?! It would be cruel of me to send you the first book without the second, as it is a continuous story. Argh. I must look some more.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the first book I have literally wanted to throw across the room. I couldn't, though, because it was a gift from a friend. And it was very difficult to reply when asked, "So, did you like it?"
AUUUGGGHHH! I HATED the way Brown tried to show he was some cooool writer or something. He flaunted the fact that he was hiding things from the reader. The book did not even get interesting in the slightest until halfway through. And, being a well-read person, the "grail" mystery was nothing new to me! So it failed on many levels. The painting stuff and symbols were interesting, but he took way too long even describing them. And the "cryptic clues" were too easy to figure out. I couldn't believe the police were so dumb. I've been to the Louvre, too, so it was amusing to read about his descriptions of it.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personnally, I don't want to read it. uninteresting book. But it's fun, the number of "Da Vinci code" tourist we have here. The best is somebody belive this book talk about real facts. Posts: 1189 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They had a debunking the da vinci code special last night on the History channel. Apparently Dan Brown stole most of his historical conjecture from an earlier book on the subject. They had the guy that wrote the earlier book on, quite extensively. (He wore sunglasses and was rather Andy Kaufmannesque, but did seem knowledgable and admitted where they were making speculative leaps.)
Unfortunately because it isn't clearly delineated in the book, I have a couple of friends whose skepticism meters aren't set high enough and have pretty much swallowed the story wholesale. I'm hoping they reshow it so I can catch the episode in its entirety.
posted
I found The Da Vinci Code to be entertaining as a cheap thriller. But I was a little put off by the arrogant propaganda that without any basis asserted that responsible historical scholarship is ignorant, and that the off-the-wall notions about an alternate "reality" of Christ's life is really the only sound scholarship that truly intelligent and honest people will accept. People who know nothing of church history may be deceived by such positive, confident assertions, but it is really just propaganda.
The idea is held up as the real truth, which the church has tried to suppress, that Jesus Christ and the early Christians never regarded Him as the truly divine Son of God, Mary Magdaline was His wife, and they had a child, and there are still descendants alive today. This is an old theory, of course, which blatantly contradicts virtually every book in the New Testament, and which the church has always judged to be heresy. But some people find a fascination with such iconoclastic theories, and it made an interesting plot basis for a thriller.
When I was finished with the book, I felt it succeeded as entertainment, but was rather insulting in its arrogant insistence that only students of history who buy into this heretical doctrine are really intelligent and competent scholars.
If Jesus was not truly the divine Son of God, then the Christian religion is pointless. No mere man could be humanity's Savior. Only the Creator Himself could be qualified to join Himself to His creation and take humanity into Himself and become the New Adam, the Federated Head of our race, so that He could legitimately and ethically take responsibility for all of us at once, and pay the penalty for our sins by carrying out the sentence of divine justice against sinful humanity, yet leave us with a new heritage of a new sinless humanity for us to buy into through faith. As Paul said, "Our old man is crucified with Him." (Romans 6:6) And also: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Romans 6:4, 5.)
There is a great and profound depth to the theology of Salvation in Biblical Christianity. In the obnoxious heresy promoted by The Da Vinci Code, Jesus is no more than a prophet, and we all might as well be Muslims.
[ January 17, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
