The Da Vinci Code

Rating:
Summary: 3 Solid Stars
Review: The DaVinci Code has a 3.5 star rating overall, and that's probably accurate or somewhat high. There are a LOT of misinterpretations and flaws in the book, but there is also much to enjoy.

This is a novel, a work of fiction. However, Brown has done limited homework and portrays this novel as a vehicle for promoting alternate and plausible histories. This is my biggest fault with the novel - that it pretends to be a peer-reviewed historical thesis. Brown's personal feelings and biases are rampant throughout the work, which is fine for a fictional novel but has no business in a historical treatise.

And often Brown is simply wrong. The number Phi, for example, appears to have magical properties until you learn it falls out in natural processes. The ratio of male to female bees in a hive tends toward Phi due to the way male bees are formed. The packing of seeds in a flower ratios to Phi because it is by far the most efficient arrangement and is a product of natural selection. However, Brown offers Phi as proof of Devine Creation, via protagonist Harvard Professor Robert Langdon and a math student during his lecture. To me this is irresponsible, like saying that the number Pi being buried within Egyptian pyramid architecture is proof of alien involvement. Sloppy and wrong, and annoying things like this riddle the book. Claiming the word "alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Jewish language, "alef" and "beit" while completely ignoring the fact that the first two letters of Greek are "alpha" and "beta".

Brown also goes far overboard concerning symbolism and hidden meanings. According to Brown, anything anywhere concerning the number 5 is a hidden allusion to the sacred female - the way Venus moves in the sky, the rose, iambic pentameter, my hand, the number of pennies in a nickel - ok, I made up the last two, but some of his inferences are absolutely wrong. And these are just the instances I caught. A true historian would probably shudder at the leaps Brown takes via the characters, who are all supposed to be the most learned experts in the field.

And for such smart people there is an appalling lack of logic. From the first, where Sophie takes Langdon's transmitter and hides it in soap, then throws it onto a moving truck - I think I saw Cindy Brady do something similar in "A Brady Christmas", but this Harvard Professor remarks that she "is a hell of a lot smarter than he is." What a black mark on Harvard. And like the Keystone Cops the Parisian policemen all chase the truck, leaving the two fugitives alone in the Louvre to saunter on their merry way, even though this is one of the most sensational murders of modern time. No logic.

The codes are ridiculously easy. There was good logic hiding the keystone in the vault, but a modern CNC machine would have easily cut off the top of the Cryptex without destroying the contents. You could take it to a machine shop for 1000 bucks. If I had the most important secret of 2000 years in my hands, I would have spent the grand and had the answer in 20 minutes instead of jumping through those ridiculous hoops. There are far better ways to hide secrets then 14th ca technology, and I would imagine the Grand Leader of the Priory of Sion would know that.

Finally, the literary style itself is sophomoric. The 1 page chapters are geared for an audience that cannot concentrate on one subject for more than 10 minutes. There is no character development whatsoever, and the lack of logic and unbelievable circumstances allow for little character empathy.

So after all this, why did I give it 3 stars? It is, simply, a very readable book. A good book for late at night when you don't want to think too hard. Plus, the concepts were fascinating to me (which unlike other reviewers I'd never been exposed to before). I am not nearly as critical of his prose as others - I liked his dialogue and methods for advancing his viewpoints. Again, there is no character development, but the characters themselves are secondary to the central thesis, like watching a Discovery Channel historical recreation rather than an HBO movie. And while the character's lack of logic and Brown's incorrect assertions were definitely annoying, I found that they didn't really take away from my overall reading enjoyment. However, I have amended my original rating to 3 stars. The ending is definitely a product of an anxious publisher, and destroys the book.

So despite the many criticisms, I did enjoyed reading "The Da Vinci Code" and though it only merits 3 stars.

Rating:
Summary: THIS BOOK IS FALSE.
Review: I'm summarizing another review on here, because it seems like most of you guys would rather skim the important negative reviews, then turn right around and still give the book five stars.

Didn't you see?!? Those socalled "well researched factual ideas" ARE NOT TRUE. I hated the book just because it was written badly, but now I know that Dan Brown LIED, hoping that you guys would do what you've done and think that he was telling the truth.

This is pathetic sensationalism, and you guys bought into it.

Rating:
Summary: Great Informative Thriller
Review: The one thing I liked best about this book was the art and religion history. It was a very well researched book and I couldn't put it down. Definitely one of the best murder mystery books in a long time.

Rating:
Summary: A book that Hooks you from the first Line
Review: It's an enticing mystery with strong historical and factual roots. Consider it the new version of based on a true story. Like a history lesson that you wish you had in school. I must warn allot a good weekend to this book because unlike the cliche that once you pick it up you won't put it down, this book actually does just so.

Rating:
Summary: The Davinci Code
Review: I found the codes that Brown used throughout this book intriguing. I was somewhat disappointed with the beat of the book, however, because I thought it would be paced more like Brown's other book Angels and Demons. Thank goodness for epilogues because I would have been truly disappointed if there wasn't an end to finding the Holy Grail. The Davinvi Code was worth the read and I will certainly recommend it to others. And to those who said this plot was all lies, HELLO; this book is fiction!

Rating:
Summary: Lest you be confused by any facts, edutainment this isn't...
Review: Imagine a pseudo-intellectual murder mystery chase which carries the reader through the jungles of South America, past the Matterhorn and K2 all the way to the source of the Congo, encountering kangaroos, tigers, elephants, and various members of the Hmong, Ibo, and Lapp Indian tribes. Imagine someone reading it being genuinely impressed by the breadth of geographical knowledge displayed by the author. On the other hane, if you had any background in geography, it would be a quite annoying read, would it not? What if the characters were also semi-cartoonish and the various plot developments foreseeable? Well, you might want to keep reading just to see what everyone who liked it has been raving about or if your guess about who, what, and where turns out to be just what the author had in mind. Sorta like a crossword puzzle. Or you might put it down and wait for the intended movie starring none other than Harrison Ford. This is not the DaVinci Code, but, were you to futz around with history and Renaissance art - rather than geography - and inject into your story claims about Jesus, his disciples, and his church that were absolutely certain to be disputed, you would have the "literary equivalent" to the DaVinci Code. Fortunately I read a borrowed copy and only wasted my time. No way I'll pay to see the movie.

The RC Church (particularly Opus Dei) gets slandered in Brown's book (which, of course, generates controversy which generates book sales) but after weathering centuries of scandals which were actually true, the Church can easily take care of itself in this silly affair. Indeed, I suspect Opus Dei will actually benefit from the attention and likely new members it gets. The book's real victims aren't the Church, Opus Dei, the Apostles, or devout Christians; they are the folks who have read this book and imagine that Dan Brown's "research" has actually produced anything worth learning, readers who not only don't know any history, they're too lazy to investigate the "facts" for themselves.

Maybe Brown wrote this thinking, like PT Barnum, "never give a sucker an even break," let's give 'em a putative "edutainment," wherein all the controversial "church-facts" fundamental to the story are not even "dangerous" or "heretical" because they are patently absurd to anyone willing to look into them. The more I think about it, the more I suspect just such a cynical ploy. Brilliant, actually. Put Jesus at the center of a sexual relationship with the Magdalene, grossly misrepresent the simplest historical facts about the Bible, the Church, DaVinci's depictions of various biblical scenes, etc. and when people point out inacuracies and absurdities, others will think that the Church really is "trying to hide something" about Jesus and Mary. Just like Barnum exhibited genuine animals to his audience, Brown does use genuine facts: Yes, there really was a DaVinci who painted the Mona Lisa, and it really does hang in the Palais Louvre in Paris (served, by the way, by Metro Line 7, aka "the Rose Line," - how did Langdon/Brown fail to mention that!?) There really were Knights Templar; there really is a Harvard University. There really was a Jesus of Nazareth and he really did love a woman, a disciple, called Mary Magdalene.

For those of you who loved the book and really don't want to be confused by real (or at least more likely real) facts, there's plenty more of this stuff out there that is better written. In addition to the other books cited (by others) as Brown's "sources," read DH Lawrence's, The Man Who Died. Hey, read the "suppressed" gnostic gospels for yourselves. Even though they've supposedly been "suppressed" for centuries, you can actually buy them and read them for yourselves! Don't read anything about the early Christian church, Constantine, the Council of Nicaea, DaVinci, the Crusades, and especially don't read that earlier best-seller, the New Testament, ("the canon") for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining enough, but way too much hype!
Review: Two people who know that I have an aversion to reading, "what everyone else is reading" recommended the Da Vinci Code to me. They assured me that, despite all the frenzy surrounding the book, it was great!

I did read it, and while I read it quickly because something about it did capture my attention, I did not really enjoy it. I thought it was a clever way for Dan Brown to communicate the massive amount of information he obtained while researching the book, however, I really felt that the book was quite weak. I think Dan Brown has seen how well John Grisham has done in turning mediocre books into blockbusters and decided he should get in on the action as well. He even describes the main character as resembling Harrison Ford.

The book was entertaining enough for me to finish it, but I wish I had borrowed it from a friend or the library instead of purchasing it.

Rating:
Summary: Oh my goodness---tedious hardly covers it
Review: I give it 2 stars because I actually finished it. With a final sigh of relief I turned the last page and closed the book for the last time.

Plot holes, cheap tricks of suspense, wooden characters. You name it--the logic is faulty and sometimes downright weird. Oh, and let's not forget the author's not so hidden agenda with which he likes to wack the audience upside the head excruciatingly about every page or so.

This is a strange theological and semi-historical exploration thinly disguised as fiction. Brings to mind "The Celestine Prophesy" another new age book that, to the credit of "The Da Vinci Code" I was not actually able to stomache long enough to finish. But it was a best seller too. Go figure.

Rating:
Summary: aka Foucault's Pendulum for Dummies
Review: I have to admit I'm biased, Umberto Eco being one of my favorite living authors, but The Da Vinci Code is just a pale imitation of Eco's sublime and meticulous work. The prose is excruciating the plot transparent and the characters are pure cliches. The random historical facts Brown throws in come across as smug and extraneous; he reminds me of that one kid in every class who thinks his constant off-topic comments impress the professor. Please please turn back now and buy Foucault's Pendulum instead.

Rating:
Summary: A Religious Experience
Review: This is a book of fiction, which incorporates many historical anecdotes regarding Christ's life. Having never heard any of these anecdotes, I thoroughly enjoyed the "alternative" theories explored in the book. Nowhere does the author force feed the reader any particular version of the "truth," but rather he allows the reader to think for him/herself.

The storyline, I thought, was fast-paced and exciting. The more I read, the more I felt at ease with some of my own personal views that would contradict those of organized religion. I think the best aspect of the book is that it harmonizes the literal interpretations of religion with artistic interpretations of it. The truth, as is often the case, most likely lies somewhere in between. I felt at peace with my own views after reading this book, and therefore felt enlightened.

Finally, as is the theme of the book itself, read the book and judge for yourself whether you like it or not. I personally, loved it; you may not, but decide for yourself! That is the essence of religion freedom.